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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It confirms the tool is read-only, free, and fetches data at request time. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., rate limits, caching behavior), the return format structure, or error handling for invalid inputs.

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 compact (four sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: screening action, data sources, output type, disclaimers, pricing. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description covers return format ('scored fuzzy matches with programs and countries') and data freshness. It lacks detail on the structure of individual matches, which might be inferred from parameter semantics. Overall, sufficient for a straightforward screening tool.

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% with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds minimal extra value beyond the schema—e.g., it notes 'scored fuzzy matches' but does not explain how minScore interacts with that scoring. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Screen') and resource ('entity name against public consolidated sanctions lists'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like sanctions_screen_by_country or sanctions_screen_check_address. It also mentions the output type ('scored fuzzy matches').

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 states the tool is 'read-only' and 'informational only, not legal advice,' but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs. other sanctions-related tools (e.g., sanctions_screen_by_country, list_programs). Usage context is implied but no alternative tools are mentioned.

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