aml_requirements

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent lookup, and the description adds useful domain behavior by explaining that DNFBP categories are flagged for goAML registration. It does not describe error behavior for unknown categories, but the output schema reduces the need to describe return values here.

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 and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, followed immediately by the key DNFBP/goAML behavior. The category list earns its place by helping the caller choose a valid business_category value.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, key behavioral trait, and example categories. It is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around category matching semantics and default 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the single business_category parameter. It does add useful common values such as real_estate, precious_metals, auditor, and lawyer, but it does not clarify whether these are exhaustive accepted values, whether matching is exact, or what the default 'general' returns.

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 states a specific verb and resource: return AML/CFT requirements for a business category. It also clarifies that DNFBP categories requiring goAML registration are flagged. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby compliance siblings such as ubo_filing_guide or pdpl_compliance, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need AML/CFT requirements for a business category, especially to check DNFBP/goAML registration obligations. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many compliance tools in the sibling list.

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