Pre-deal clearance verdict (full)

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

Annotations are minimal, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses the deterministic fallback behavior (verdict_source = 'rule_based'), the evidence-gap mechanism, the production API key requirement, the decision-support nature rather than actual clearance, the disclaimer, and the primitives run. All this is beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 earns its place: outputs, primitives, reliability self-description, caveats, API-key requirement, and the preview alternative. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and output contract in the first sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does: probability, verdict tier, blockers, restructure suggestion, post-restructure clearance, verdict_source, and evidence_gaps. It also covers authentication, disclaimers, fallback behavior, and the sibling alternative, making the tool fully callable by an agent without additional inference.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds useful domain context (physical-commodity deal, front-office originator) but no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Run a Pre-Deal Compliance Copilot check') and enumerates the exact outputs: clearance probability, verdict tier, blockers, restructure suggestion, and post-restructure clearance. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the sub-tools it orchestrates (cluster, regulatory, adverse-media, sanctions, verified-profile) and by contrasting with predeal_preview.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('for a front-office originator'), an explicit alternative ('use predeal_preview for a free verdict without one'), and a clear exclusion ('not a clearance itself and not legal advice'). It also gives user-facing handling instructions for verdict_source and evidence_gaps, which goes beyond typical usage guidance.

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