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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the x402 pricing model ($0.05 USDC), that errors are not charged, the twice-daily refresh cadence, and that the extended-remarks file (where most sanctioned crypto addresses live) is included. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before paying for a call.

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 dense sentences with the cost model front-loaded, followed by coverage and freshness details. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does not describe what a screening result contains (match/no-match, score, matched entry). Coverage, pricing, and freshness are all well handled, so the single remaining gap is the response shape.

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 name, limit, address, and threshold. The description usefully characterizes the name matching as 'fuzzy, alias-aware', which contextualizes the threshold parameter, but adds nothing for limit or address formats beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: screens a person/company name and/or crypto wallet address against the US Treasury OFAC SDN list. It also differentiates itself from every sibling (explain_transaction, find_defi_yields, list_services, etc.), none of which perform sanctions screening.

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 'and/or' phrasing implies at least one of name/address must be supplied, which is a usage hint, but the description never states when to use this tool versus alternatives or when it is inappropriate. Given the siblings are unrelated domains, the omission is minor but the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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