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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the exact price, the payment mechanism (USDC from the configured wallet), the budget-cap constraint, and a prompt-injection warning that results are third-party data and not instructions. That injection caveat is high-value behavioral context that no annotation supplies.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then cost, then safety. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Covers purpose, payment, and safety, and annotations handle the read-only profile. It does not describe what a screening result looks like (match/no-match, scores) or how limit affects the response, and with no output schema those are the remaining holes.

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, including the detailed confirm_over_cap explanation. The description adds no meaning to q, uid, or limit, leaving the baseline 3 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 (screen) and resource (a name against the US OFAC SDN list), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from every sibling tool. The product identifier (ofac.sdn) further disambiguates it from other data lookups.

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 establishes that this is a paid call with budget caps, implying when it is appropriate (when the agent intends to spend USDC), but it never names an alternative or states explicit when/when-not conditions. No sibling competes for sanctions screening, so the gap is modest but real.

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