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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that screening runs only against 'enabled' lists, but says nothing about latency, rate limits, or what a hit/miss outcome looks like.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, with the parameter note appended where it belongs. No filler, though the backticked fragment reads slightly like a schema annotation grafted onto prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is a simple 2-parameter read. Still missing is the default behavior when `lists` is null (presumably all enabled lists) and how to obtain valid list slugs, which an agent needs before calling with that parameter.

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 carries the burden and does explain the only non-obvious parameter: `lists` is an optional comma-separated set of list slugs. `email` is self-evident. It falls short of saying what happens when `lists` is omitted or how valid slugs are discovered.

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?

Specific verb (screen) plus resource (email address) and the data sources it checks (sanctions and crime lists). The sibling family (screen_country, screen_crypto_address, screen_pep, etc.) is implicitly differentiated because the resource being screened is named explicitly, though no sibling is called out by name.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the resource, and 'enabled sanctions and crime lists' hints at the screening context. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no guidance on choosing among the screen_* siblings, and no note on what to do with the result.

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