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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses deterministic normalized-name/token matching, the CLEAR / REVIEW / HIT verdict set, list scale and refresh cadence, a $0.02 fee, the x402 URL flow, and the distinction between free tool invocation and payment on the URL.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: scope and verdicts, use case and data characteristics, then payment/delivery mechanics. The critical scope is front-loaded and there is 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?

For a one-parameter screening tool with no output schema, the description covers input semantics, matching behavior, result categories, and the monetized delivery handshake. An agent has enough to decide whether to call it and what the response flow will be.

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 shema already covers the single `name` parameter at 100%. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying the input can be a person or company and explaining that matching is normalized-name and token based, which goes beyond the raw schema text.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Screen a person or company name against the U.S. Treasury OFAC Specially Designated Nationals and Consolidated lists.' It also makes the distinction from the likely wallet-address sibling clear throuhg the word 'name' and the explicit person/company scope.

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?

It names a concrete use case: 'the check a payments, marketplace or KYC agent runs on every new counterparty.' It does not explicitly mention the alternative screen_sanctions_wallet for address screening, so the when-not guidance is implied rather than fully stated.

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