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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful context that the sanctions data is OFAC-curated today, but does not explain auth requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral constraints.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording. The core purpose comes first, followed by the only non-obvious parameter clarification.

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 simple two-parameter screening tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly. The main remaining gap is the absence of usage alternatives or guidance about available list slugs.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that `lists` is an optional comma-separated list of list slugs, which is valuable, but the required `country` parameter receives no format detail beyond the phrase 'country or region'.

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: checking whether a country or region carries sanctions designations. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as screen_email, screen_pep, and screen_website, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies the tool is used for country or region sanctions screening, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison to sibling screening tools. The optional `lists` note is parameter detail rather than usage guidance.

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