middle_corridor_deal_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses what the tool does (screens for sanctions-adjacent and corridor risk), what it returns (triage recommendation, risk signal, etc.), and its limitations (pre-compliance triage only, no live retrieval, no verification, no advice). No contradictions.

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 five sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, then input format, output, and limitations. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is information-dense yet clear.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, input requirements, detailed output components, and behavioral limitations. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to understand correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

The single parameter 'deal_risk_request' is described as a structured object with explicit fields listed (route, cargo, counterparties, dated_sources, risk_question, decision_stage), which adds value beyond the schema's minimal description. Schema coverage is high, but the description provides useful guidance on the object's contents.

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 the specific verb 'Screen' and identifies the resource as 'a Kazakhstan / Middle Corridor (Trans-Caspian) trade deal'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'cis_secondary_sanctions_exposure' and 'gulf_maritime_exposure' by specifying the geographic and corridor context.

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 states when to use the tool ('before signature, shipment, insurer handoff, or committee review') and explicitly notes limitations ('Pre-compliance evidence triage only: no live retrieval, no factual-truth verification, no legal or sanctions advice; human review is required'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools but provides clear context for appropriate use.

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