cis_secondary_sanctions_exposure

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a triage tool that returns a recommendation, score, dimensions, evidence gaps, and minimum sources. It also warns about limitations (local stdio, no live retrieval, human review required).

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 packed with useful information but is slightly long (three sentences). It front-loads purpose and scope, then details input and output. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but it remains efficient.

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?

Given the complexity of sanctions screening and the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains inputs, outputs (triaged recommendation, decision-readiness score, etc.), and limitations. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning by listing expected fields inside exposure_request (counterparty, exposure_facets, etc.) and referencing an external schema. This helps the agent understand the structure beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 uses specific verbs ('triage', 'returns') and identifies the resource ('secondary-sanctions exposure for CIS-domiciled counterparties'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a niche area (CIS secondary sanctions) not addressed by other tools like 'gulf_maritime_exposure'.

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 explicitly states when to use (for enhanced due diligence on CIS counterparties) and provides key exclusions: runs on user-supplied evidence only, no live retrieval, name match not identity verification, human review required. This gives clear context for appropriate use versus alternatives.

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