ubo_filing_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the legal references and thresholds but does not mention any side effects, data freshness, or response format (though output schema exists). It is adequate but sparse.

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 very concise, using two sentences plus bullet-like key points. It front-loads the purpose and wastes no words. Every piece of information is relevant.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential legal context. It could explain what UBO stands for or the geographic scope, but it's largely complete for a simple informational tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds value by detailing the content of the output (specific legal details), which is beyond the empty schema.

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 it returns UBO filing requirements and specifies key details (Cabinet Decision 58, 25% threshold, 15-day window, max fine). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aml_requirements or esr_status.

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?

It implies when to use (when UBO filing info is needed) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide 'when not to use' guidance. The sibling tools list includes many regulatory tools, so more guidance would help.

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