CheckOrganisation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation ('Run KYC/AML Checks') but does not disclose whether this action is read-only, whether it creates or updates records, whether it is asynchronous, or whether it has side effects. An agent cannot judge safety or expected consequences from this text.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the action and target are immediately visible.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is nearly sufficient for invocation, but with no output schema and no annotations it fails to explain what the agent should expect after running the checks or whether further steps are needed. There are clear gaps around return values and operational behavior.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully describes the input surface. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed; with 0 parameters the baseline for this dimension is met.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and identifies the resource: KYC/AML checks on an Organisation and/or Associated Individuals. This makes the tool's core purpose reasonably clear, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like CreateCheckEntity or QueryEntityChecks.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With many sibling tools available, an agent is left to infer whether this should be preferred over entity-focused check tools.

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