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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it returns possible matches with a similarity score, and it warns that matches require further verification rather than being definitive. This helps the agent set expectations without contradicting 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?

Three concise sentences cover purpose, result, and usage guidance. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 read-only screening tool with annotations covering safety and a schema covering parameters, the description is mostly complete: it explains what it screens, the source, the output nature, and the follow-up action. The only minor gap is that it does not describe how topic/country filtering affects screening, but the schema provides those options.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds some semantic value by clarifying that the query can be a company or person and that screening covers multiple list types, but it does not add meaningful detail about limit, topic, or country beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Screen'), the target resource ('a company or a person'), and the domain (consolidated sanctions, PEP, and law-enforcement lists). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like check_dual_use by naming the exact list types and the OpenSanctions source.

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 gives a concrete use case: 'Use it before the person commits to a counterparty.' It also clarifies how to interpret results ('Treat a match as a reason to verify further, not as proof'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like check_dual_use, so it stops short of a 5.

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