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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds significant behavioral context: it warns that findings quote reported coverage, not established fact, and explains that a workspace-wide screening has null team fields. It also discloses pagination behavior and that the list is newest first.

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 a single, dense paragraph but well-structured: purpose first, then the two modes. It is not overly verbose given the complexity, but could benefit from bullet points for clarity. Still, it is efficient.

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?

The description covers both modes comprehensively, lists all filter options, explains pagination, and provides a high-level view of the response contents. It even includes the caveat about findings. For a tool with no output schema and 8 optional parameters, this is complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping node_id to search_companies, entity_id to company_profile, and iso3 to country, plus clarifying that screening_id overrides other arguments. It also explains the meaning of limit/offset pagination and the exact total in response.

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 (lookup of adverse media screenings) and clearly distinguishes two modes (list vs. full run). It also explains the scope (caller's team) and that it covers organizations and countries. This differentiates it from sibling tools like company_profile or search_companies.

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 explains the two modes: without screening_id it lists runs, with it returns full details. It also specifies which filter parameters apply to which subject types (e.g., node_id for a company from search_companies). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a full usage guide.

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