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

Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses deterministic exact-match behavior (no fuzzy matching), possible outputs ('match'/'clear'/'unavailable'), snapshot-scoping, and the non-guarantee of a 'clear'. This is rich behavioral context that helps the agent set expectations.

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 tight sentences deliver the core purpose, matching mode, output values, and key caveats. Every clause earns its place; no filler or 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?

With a rich input schema, output schema, and clear annotations, the description still adds critical context: exact-match behavior, snapshot scope, evidentiary nature, and non-clearance status. It fully equips the agent to understand the tool's limits and role among siblings.

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 already documents both 'type' and 'identifier' with descriptions and 100% coverage. The description repeats the same identifier type examples from the schema, adding no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema shoulders the semantic load.

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 it screens an identifier (passport/national id/registration/other) against listed designations' identifiers using deterministic exact matching. This verb+resource definition distinguishes it from siblings like screen_sanctioned_name (which likely handles fuzzy name matching) and the listing/regime tools.

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?

It explicitly notes this is screening evidence only, not a legal/compliance determination or clearance, and that a 'clear' is snapshot-scoped. This sets clear boundaries on use. It stops short of naming alternative tools, but the 'no fuzzy matching' clue implies when to use a different screening path.

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