kyb_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses cost ($0.12 USDC per call), p99 latency (30000ms), the full output shape (grade, score, verdict, reasons, confidence, sections), and caveats about it not being legal advice and sanctions matches needing manual verification. It omits auth/error behavior, but that is a minor gap relative to the disclosure provided.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool identity and verdict scale, then ordered contents, return values, input rule, usage, caveats, and cost/latency. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; the em-dash run-on in the opening sentence pushes it just below maximal.

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?

For a high-complexity aggregation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains return values, cost, latency, and the key input precondition, which is close to what an agent needs. It lacks detail on failure handling or how partial sections are reported, which keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 67% and the schema lists zero required params, so the description's constraint 'Pass name and at least one of vat_number, lei, domain' adds genuinely necessary semantics the schema lacks. It also flags IBAN as optional, though it adds no format guidance for LEI/VAT beyond what the schema shows.

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 specific verb and resource (KYB company check) and enumerates exactly what is aggregated: LEI entity status, VAT/VIES, sanctions, domain age, email security, website, optional IBAN. This clearly positions it against granular siblings like vat_validate, sanctions_screen, company_lookup and domain_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?

Gives a concrete usage context ('Use for onboarding and payment checks') plus the input precondition ('Pass name and at least one of vat_number, lei, domain'). It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives it replaces, so an agent must infer that it supersedes single-purpose checks, but the context is clear.

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