Build export-control due diligence checklist

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait — the industry parameter 'materially changes the output' — and specifies content differences (3B001/744.23 for semiconductor, CCL absence for battery). But it does not disclose return format, whether the tool consults live regulatory data, or what happens with industry='both'.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the industry detail follows. The content is dense but purposeful. The second sentence is a long compound that could be restructured into conditional form per industry value, but no words are wasted.

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 and no annotations, the description must convey what the agent gets back and how parameters shape it. It covers the industry dimension well but omits the checklist's output format, the semantics of the five transaction stages, and the behavior of the 'both' enum value — leaving notable gaps for a 2-param tool with zero ancillary documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does well for 'industry', explaining exactly what each of the two industry sets covers. However, 'transactionStage' receives no semantic explanation beyond the schema's enum names; the checklist's stage-specific variation is never described. Compensation is partial, hence a 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 opens with a specific verb+resource pairing — 'Generate a due-diligence checklist for a transaction stage' — which makes the tool's function immediately identifiable. It is clearly distinct from all siblings (classify_eccn, screen_restricted_party, draft_export_control_clause, etc.), none of which produce a checklist artifact.

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 scope 'for a transaction stage' implies when the tool applies, and the industry detail implies parameter-driven usage. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over sibling tools (e.g., draft_export_control_clause or classify_transaction_risk), and gives no when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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