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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing the behavior: it returns counts and sample records per source, and handles unreachable sources by reporting 'not-checked' rather than 'clean.' This is valuable context that the readOnlyHint annotation doesn't cover. It also discloses the scope of what the screen checks, giving the agent a clear picture of what will happen.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, lists the specific sources, gives usage context, and explains the output behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

Given the complexity of multiple sources and no output schema, the description explains the key aspects: what it screens, what it returns (counts and samples), and how it handles unreachable sources. It doesn't detail the exact output structure, but that is acceptable given the lack of an output schema and the tool's free-screen nature. Minor gaps like pagination or auth are not critical.

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?

The schema description for the 'name' parameter already covers it fully with a type and example. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. The high schema coverage means the description's job is already done.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: performing due diligence on a US company by screening against multiple official federal records (SEC EDGAR, OFAC SDN, USAspending, court dockets). The verb 'screens' plus the explicit list of sources and what it extracts (CIK, state, SIC) makes the function unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from the many unrelated sibling tools by naming its specific domain.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool: 'before onboarding a vendor, signing a supplier, screening a counterparty or qualifying a sales lead.' This gives clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest any alternative tools, though no closely related siblings exist to differentiate from. The guidance is strong but lacks exclusions.

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