Counterparty KYC screen

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: PEP screening is not shipped and users must be told, sanctions/registration/asset/footprint steps run out-of-band and return as 'queued' with a poll_url, and a verdict plus per-check evidence is returned. It also clarifies the tool is decision-support, not a legal determination. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 sentence carries necessary information: scope, critical limitation, async behavior, return shape, intended use, and prerequisite. The most important action and scope are front-loaded, and the caveats are placed where they are most actionable.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it names the data sources, explains the async queuing behavior and poll_url, defines the return verdict values, states the PEP limitation, sets expectations about legal authority, and notes the API key requirement. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and communicate results honestly.

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 schema already documents all five parameters fully. The description does not add much parameter-level meaning, but it provides useful context about what the screen does with the supplied company information. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 an explicit action ('Run an OilFlow counterparty KYC screen') and enumerates the concrete scope: cluster-blocklist match, regulatory tradability, a 7-step registration pipeline, and 8-list sanctions screening. The resource is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like regulatory_check, cluster_check, and ubo_screen by framing it as a comprehensive KYC pipeline rather than a single-purpose 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 clear context such as requiring a production API key, being decision-support for a compliance analyst, and not being a legal determination, and it warns that PEP screening is not included. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives like ubo_screen or regulatory_check, nor does it name any alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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