aml_requirements

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

No annotations provided, so description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or how it handles invalid inputs. Only states that it returns requirements and flags categories.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose, then adding key specifics. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy.

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?

Given one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the functionality and parameter semantics well. It could benefit from error handling notes, but the output schema likely fills gaps.

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 0%, but description adds meaning by listing common categories (real_estate, auditor, etc.) and explaining the parameter's role (business category). This helps the agent understand valid input values.

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 returns AML/CFT requirements for a business category, with specific verb 'Return'. It also explains it flags DNFBP categories that must register on goAML, distinguishing it from other regulatory tools.

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 implies usage for AML/CFT compliance but does not explicitly provide when to use or advise against alternatives. No guidance on exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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