get_travel_rule

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: results carry evidence dates, conditions, coverage gaps and warnings, and absent context must not be read as an eligibility or waiver conclusion — a meaningful semantic caveat for a compliance-adjacent lookup.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with no padding, and the read-only qualifier is front-loaded. The phrasing is telegraphic and the second/third sentences read as disjointed rules rather than a coherent brief, but nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but with eight undocumented parameters, no usage routing among seven siblings, and no indication of which optional inputs change the result, the definition leaves too much for the agent to guess before calling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Eight parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them — not the required passport/destination pair, not the transport or qualifyingVisa enums, not the include='evidence' constant, not purpose/release/documentType. Only a faint echo of 'evidence' hints at the include flag, leaving the burden unmet.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a verb and resource ('get travel rule') and the read-only nature, but 'travel rule' is unexplained domain jargon, and the sentence doesn't tell an agent what the resource is or how it differs from siblings like get_programme or get_coverage. The trailing sentences describe output caveats rather than clarifying purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No statement of when to call this versus the seven sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. The guidance present ('preserve evidence dates... missing context never establishes eligibility') is about interpreting results, not selecting the tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.