sanctions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds value by explaining the tool provides both details and pricing, and specifies the exact regulatory lists (OFAC SDN and Consolidated Sanctions List), which is useful context beyond annotations. This is a read operation that returns information, which is consistent with 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 a single sentence that is well-structured, front-loading the main action 'Get details and pricing' and then elaborating with specific use cases. It is concise but not overly brief, covering the essential information without unnecessary fluff.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, its regulatory context, and typical use cases. However, it lacks details on what specific information is returned (e.g., pricing structure, details format), but given the simplicity and annotations, this is acceptable.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since there are none. The baseline of 4 for zero parameters is appropriate, and the description is clear that it's an info retrieval tool.

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 provides details and pricing for SanctionRail, a name-screening service against specific US Treasury lists. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'screen_name' which presumably performs the actual screening, though it doesn't explicitly name it. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 includes use cases: before completing a transaction, onboarding a vendor, or approving a payment, which informs when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'screen_name', but the context signals and sibling name provide some guidance. It could be more explicit about the distinction between this info tool and the screening tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context: fuzzy match bands (exact/strong/probable/weak), returned fields (sanctions programme, source list, collision flag), rate limits (25/day per IP), no key requirement, and handling of aliases/transliteration/legal-form variants. This goes well beyond annotations, disclosing edge-case behavior and operational 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 efficiently structured: purpose first, then return details, then limits, then input handling. Every sentence adds information without redundancy. It's long but dense, not wordy.

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 screening tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent needs: what it does, what it returns, operational limits, and input nuances. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 100% (the 'name' param has a description). The description adds value by explaining how the name is interpreted (handles aliases, transliteration, legal-form variants), which informs the agent about input normalization. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 action ('Screen') and the target resource (person/company name against OFAC SDN and Consolidated Sanctions lists). It differentiates from the sibling get_sanctionrail_info by focusing on screening rather than API info, so an agent can distinguish without opening schemas.

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 purpose implies the usage context: when you need to check a name against sanctions lists. It doesn't explicitly mention when to use the sibling or exclusion cases, but the sibling name suggests it's for API information, so the intent is clear. Slightly short of explicit alternative guidance.

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