domain_compliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses pricing ($0.06 USDC per call), worst-case latency (p99 40000ms), the geographic constraint that limits applicability, the non-billing behavior on a failed lookup ('Not charged'), and the shape of what comes back. An agent knows cost, risk, and outcome before invoking.

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?

Four sentences, all front-loaded with the highest-value information first (what it does, then when to use it, then the failure/fallback path, then cost and latency). No filler, no restatement of the name or title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does: grade A–F, verdict, reasons, sanctions, VAT, domain security. Combined with the documented precondition, error path, price, and latency, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the single 'domain' param is documented with an example, e.g. example.de). The description adds the implicit constraint that the domain must belong to a site with a DACH imprint, which is useful context, but no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource (domain to company compliance check) and spells out the exact mechanism: read the imprint, resolve the legal entity, run a KYB check. It also names the distinct output artifacts (grade A–F, ALLOW/CAUTION/BLOCK, sanctions, VAT, domain security), which separates it from siblings like company_lookup and kyb_check.

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?

Explicitly states the use case ('vet a counterparty from its website'), the precondition (imprint required, DACH only: Germany, Austria, Switzerland), the failure mode when that precondition is unmet ('errors with Not charged'), and the exact fallback ('then use kyb-check with the company name'). This is the full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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