Fraud-cluster screen

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive traits. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: severity semantics ('confirmed' vs. 'likely' vs. 'suspected'), the warning that 'suspected' is not first-party confirmed, and the caveat that 'matched:false' is not an exoneration. This is high-value interpretive context.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by essential output semantics and a false-negative caveat. Every clause adds information; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately covers return behavior: severity values, the 'matched:false' case, and the 'suspected' lead warning. It also implies cited sources exist. For a simple two-parameter lookup, this is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret results correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-level details beyond the schema — entity and country are already clearly described in the schema. No meaningful extra parameter semantics are provided.

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 ('Look up') and names a precise resource ('OilFlow's first-party-investigated Scam Cluster Intelligence Feed'). It also explains the output severity scale and the meaning of 'matched:false', which clearly scopes this tool as a scam-cluster name lookup, distinct from siblings like kyc_screen or regulatory_check.

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 gives a clear context: checking counterparty names against a specialized fraud feed. However it does not explicitly name sibling tools or specify when not to use it. Still, the context strongly implies its niche vs. other screen types, so it earns a 4.

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