Beneficial-ownership screen

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing the 8 sanctions lists, the PEP exclusion, the OFAC 50% rule, cache-return behavior, the partial US registry coverage post-March-2025, and the interpretive warning that flagged patterns are signals rather than verdicts. This is rich behavioral context that an agent needs before invoking and before passing results to a user.

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 longer than a typical tool description, but every sentence carries useful information: caching behavior, polling path, regulatory limitations, and authentication requirements. The main action is front-loaded, with caveats placed later. It is dense but not bloated, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what a response contains: either a cached graph or a graph_id to poll with ubo_graph. It also provides the critical coverage caveat to relay, the production key requirement, and the risk-interpretation guardrail, making the description effectively complete for correct invocation and result handling.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents root_entity_name, root_jurisdiction, and force_refresh. The tool description does not need to repeat parameter details and does not add much parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the specific action 'Start a beneficial-ownership (UBO) graph traversal for an entity' and explains what that traversal does: walks registries, flags shell-company patterns, and screens for sanctions exposure. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ubo_graph by positioning this tool as the initiator and ubo_graph as the polling target, and warns that PEP is not screened.

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 usage context: use this tool to start a UBO graph, and when the cache is unavailable, poll ubo_graph with the returned graph_id. It also explains the production API key requirement and the coverage caveat to pass on. It does not explicitly contrast with kyc_screen or other sibling tools beyond the PEP exclusion, stopping short of a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guide.

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