request_compliance_consultation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions a price ('Price: $500') which is useful cost disclosure, but doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, whether this initiates a paid service, response time expectations, or what 'preliminary assessment' entails beyond the output schema.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns, Price). Each sentence earns its place, though the 'Returns' section could be more specific given the output schema exists. The formatting with bullet-like sections aids readability.

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 paid consultation request tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basics but has gaps. The price disclosure is helpful, but without annotations, it should better explain behavioral aspects like whether this initiates a binding transaction, what 'preliminary assessment' means, and how this differs from free compliance tools in the sibling set.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters in the Args section: 'entity_type' with example options, 'jurisdictions' with examples, and 'services' with examples. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify if the listed options are exhaustive or just examples.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Request AML/KYC compliance consultation' - a specific verb ('Request') and resource ('compliance consultation') with domain context ('AML/KYC'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_compliance_check' or 'request_payment_processing', which might have overlapping compliance domains.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'run_compliance_check' or 'request_smart_contract_audit' that might also involve compliance aspects.

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