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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious operational traits: the data sources, daily refresh cadence, and an explicit cost/payment model ($0.015 USDC per call via x402) that the agent must know before invoking. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor describe response shape or rate limits, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and coverage, followed by one sentence on data provenance and one on pricing. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and none is wasted.

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 sources, freshness, and cost, but with no output schema and no annotations it never says what a check returns (verdict, risk level, matched-list detail) or whether at least one of the two optional parameters is required. For a screening tool whose entire value is the result, that is a meaningful gap.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema ('Legal or brand name', 'Website or domain'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching guidance for nom/site (e.g. whether one or both are needed, or how partial names are matched).

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 (check) and resource (counterparty) and enumerates the exact data sources consulted (AMF blacklists, ESMA MiCA register, EU/UN/OFAC sanctions). The 'before paying a platform or crypto provider' framing orients it toward payment-adjacent use, but it never names or contrasts with the adjacent siblings agora_pay_guard or agora_supplier_audit, leaving some overlap ambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear trigger context: run this before paying a platform or crypto provider. However, it states no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone whether agora_pay_guard or agora_supplier_audit should be preferred in a given situation.

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