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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: price per call, USDC payment, budget caps, and the meta-instruction that results are third-party data. Annotations flag it as non-read-only and open-world, but the description clarifies the billing mechanism and safety caveats.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then pricing, behavioral caveats, and the free-sample alternative. No wasted words, though the payment details are dense.

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, non-idempotent screening tool with no output schema and 75% parameter coverage, the description covers purpose, cost, billing, budget caps, and data trust. It doesn't explain what the screening result looks like (match/no-match, score), which an agent might need.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no syntax or format details for 'q', 'uid', 'limit', or 'confirm_over_cap' beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Screen a name against the US OFAC Specially Designated Nationals list.' The scope is unambiguous and no sibling tool does OFAC screening, so it is clearly distinguishable.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use free_sample before paying, which is a clear alternative. But it doesn't say when not to use this tool (e.g., if the user only wants a free preview), and no exclusions or conditions are given.

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