usecase_high_risk_transactions

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explicitly says it 'runs curated Cypher in read mode', indicating a safe, read-only operation with a pre-vetted query. This provides essential safety transparency, though it omits details like return schema or potential access requirements.

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?

The description is compact, with the core action in the first sentence and a brief, useful parenthetical about the tool's origin and read-only nature in the second. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, filtering, and read-only behavior, providing sufficient context for an agent to select it. However, it does not specify the shape of the returned transactions, which might be inferred but is not explicitly stated.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, with customer_id and min_amount clearly documented. The description only restates the min_amount filtering capability ('optionally filtered to a minimum amount') without adding new semantic meaning, so the schema carries the weight.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('List'), the resource ('customer's outgoing transactions'), and the unique filter ('benefit an account in a high-risk jurisdiction'). This differentiates it from sibling use-case tools like detecting synthetic identity or searching movies.

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?

The description notes it is 'Useful for AML triage', providing a clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the distinct purpose and sibling names make the appropriate usage apparent.

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