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 meaningful context about what data is screened against ('enabled sanctions and crime lists'), but says nothing about behavior when no lists are enabled or how matching results are reported.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing backticked `lists` fragment reads as a terse note rather than a polished sentence, which slightly hurts structure.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained. Given only two parameters and the note about enabled lists implying the null default, the definition covers most of what an agent needs, though the `website` input format remains an open gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description has to carry the load. It does define `lists` as an optional comma-separated list of slugs, which is genuinely additive, but leaves `website` format ambiguous (bare domain vs URL, protocol, subdomains) despite it being the required param.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (screen) and resource (website or domain) plus the screening corpus (sanctions and crime lists). It is easily separable from siblings like screen_email or screen_country by resource type, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 entirely by the resource name — an agent can infer this is the tool for website/domain screening. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement (e.g., that lists must be enabled first).

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