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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and closed-world scope. The description adds genuinely useful context: the exact indexed sources and their sizes, plus the return semantics ("hit=true if any match") that no output schema discloses.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler: sources first, return value second, use case last. The core purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially covers returns ("hit=true if any match"), which is the key output for a screening tool. It leaves minor ambiguity about whether matching entity details are returned, but otherwise gives enough to call the tool 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the load (baseline 3). The description clarifies that the name is screened by substring but adds no format or normalization guidance beyond the schema.

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?

Uses a precise verb ("Screen a name against") and names the exact resources: SAM Exclusions (~10k) and HHS OIG LEIE (~83k). This specificity inherently distinguishes it from overlapping siblings like sanctions_check and the screen_* family, which cover different data sources.

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?

Provides clear usage context ("Use this for KYC + counterparty due diligence"), telling the agent the scenario it targets. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer on its own whether sanctions_check or screen_all is the better fit.

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