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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantive context beyond those fields: the consolidated list sources, the return contents including similarity score, list, and programme, and the important caveat that a hit is a signal requiring official confirmation rather than a legal finding.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Each sentence earns its place by adding list sources, return contents, or the legal caveat.

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 simple one-parameter screening tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete. Even without an output schema, it explains what a result contains and how to interpret a hit.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already documents it as the 'Company or person name to screen.' The description reinforces the same meaning but adds no additional syntax, formatting, or validation guidance beyond the schema.

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', and a specific resource, 'company or person name', against explicitly named sanctions lists. It is clearly distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which perform sanctions screening.

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 tool's use is implied by the action it describes, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Given that no sibling performs sanctions screening, the practical gap is small, but guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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