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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses latency ('sub-second'), data source freshness ('latest OFAC SDN and global sanctions registries'), and an output artifact ('immutable statutory proof hash'). However, it omits auth/payment requirements hinted at by apiKey and paymentToken, and says nothing about match-result behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and data source, with zero filler. Every clause carries information about capability or output.

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 six-parameter screening tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and a partial output hint but leaves the auth/payment flow, fuzzy matching behavior, and result shape unexplained.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including fuzzy_threshold ranges and country codes. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: screening against OFAC SDN and global sanctions registries. This is clearly distinguishable from all siblings (fee calculation, CUSIP valuation, debt radar, key provisioning) which operate on entirely different domains.

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 says what the tool does but never states when to use it, prerequisites, or how it relates to alternatives. There is no guidance about what to do on a match versus a clear result, or when the optional payment/auth parameters are needed.

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