Triage transaction export-control risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals non-obvious matching semantics ('word boundaries', 'negated statements are excluded') and clarifies that destination is assessed from Country Group tables rather than keywords. It also warns that a 'low' tier is not clearance, which is important for correct interpretation of results.

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 three focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds methodological caveats and a critical limitation. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool with seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must do more work. It covers overall behavior and limitations well, but it does not explain the format of the 'triage score', what the 'review plan' contains, or how the remaining parameters influence the result. An agent would likely need additional information to invoke it with full confidence.

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 only 29%, and the description partially compensates by explaining that terms are matched on word boundaries and that destination is assessed via Country Group tables—both relevant to the description and destinationCountry parameters. However, the other five parameters (endUse, counterparty, booleans) receive no semantic clarification, so interpretation still depends heavily on the schema.

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, resource, and outcome: 'Produce a triage score and review plan for a semiconductor or battery transaction.' It also distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly saying no screening, classification, or Part 744 analysis is performed, so an agent can differentiate it from siblings like screen_restricted_party or classify_eccn.

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 clear usage boundaries: it is a triage step, not a clearance, and it explicitly states what it will not do ('no screening, classification or Part 744 analysis'). It does not name alternative sibling tools directly, but the exclusions are specific enough to guide selection.

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