ubo_filing_guide

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

While annotations confirm safety (readOnlyHint=true), the description adds behavioral context by specifying the data's nature, such as the legal source (Cabinet Decision 109), the effective date, and the specific penalty structure. This informs the agent of the data quality and scope.

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 dense, but every piece of information (the decision number, date, threshold, penalty figures) is highly relevant and critical knowledge. It is not wasted content, even if it is long.

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 description is maximally complete for a knowledge-based lookup tool. It provides the full context of the regulatory requirements, including superseding laws and administrative penalties, which is likely all an AI agent would need to fulfill a complex user query.

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 zero input parameters and the schema coverage is 100%. Therefore, the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters that do not exist.

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 purpose is stated explicitly: 'Return UBO (Ultimate Beneficial Owner) filing requirements.' This is precise and clearly differentiates this knowledge retrieval tool from the massive list of sibling operational and market-data 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 tool provides excellent content but poor guidance on intent. It does not instruct the agent on *when* to use this tool versus general regulatory search tools, although its highly specific topic implies a narrow usage.

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