cis_secondary_sanctions_exposure

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: local stdio, no live retrieval, name match not identity verification, and human review required. This exceeds expectations.

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 comprehensive and front-loaded with purpose, inputs, outputs, and caveats. While longer than minimal, every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 the tool (nested object, no output schema), the description explains both input structure and output elements (triage recommendation, decision-readiness score, evidence gaps) along with usage limitations.

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 coverage is 100% but the description adds meaning by listing the expected fields inside the nested object (counterparty, exposure_facets, jurisdiction_review_scope, etc.), which is not present in the schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: triage secondary-sanctions exposure for CIS-domiciled counterparties, listing specific countries and regulatory frameworks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its narrow focus on CIS secondary sanctions with enhanced due diligence requirements.

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 context for when to use the tool (EU/UK/UAE/Singapore enhanced due diligence) and notes that it runs on user-supplied evidence without live retrieval. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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