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

Annotations already cover readOnly, non-destructive, and openWorld=false, so the description's job is to add matching semantics — and it does: fuzzy, order- and accent-insensitive matching, 0-100 scoring with reasons, and a default threshold of 85. It does not mention rate limits, quotas, or what happens when lists are unavailable, but the added behavioral detail is well beyond the annotations.

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 dense but front-loaded — the core action and coverage come first, followed by per-parameter semantics. The parenthetical list of jurisdictions is long but earns its place by defining screening scope; nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 7-parameter screening tool with an output schema present, the description supplies matching behavior, ranking/exclusion logic, and the threshold default — enough to call it correctly. Remaining gaps (valid list slugs, result pagination/limits) are minor given that return shape is covered by the output schema.

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 all parameter meaning, and it largely does: type restricts party class, birth_date accepts YYYY/YYYY-MM/YYYY-MM-DD and excludes inconsistent individuals, country ranks by nationality/address/flag, id_number promotes a document match, and threshold has a stated 50-100 range with default 85. Only the `lists` slugs are left unenumerated, which is a minor residual gap.

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 ('Screen a person, company, vessel or aircraft name') and enumerates the exact list coverage (OFAC SDN/Consolidated, UN, EU, UK, SECO, Canada, DFAT, Trésor, MOF). It implicitly differentiates from screen_vessel/screen_aircraft by noting that 'type' can restrict to one party type, but it never names those siblings or says why to pick this broad tool over them.

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 rather than stated: the agent can infer it is the general name-screening entry point with optional narrowing. There is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when to reach for screen_pep, screen_government_id, or the vessel/aircraft-specific variants instead.

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