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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance: it reflects current status including delistings, and returns only a boolean with no case-level detail. This exceeds what annotations alone disclose and sets correct expectations about output granularity.

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 sentences, front-loads the core action and oracle, then adds output behavior and a practical usage trigger. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the data source, explains dynamic status changes, specifies the boolean return type, and tells the agent when to call it. The schema covers address format, so nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the address as an EVM wallet address with 0x + 40 hex format. The description repeats 'EVM wallet address' but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the 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 ('Sanctions-screen') and resource ('EVM wallet address') against a named oracle (Chainalysis), and clearly distinguishes the output as a sanctioned/not-sanctioned boolean. This differentiates it from sibling tools like screen_name and verify_us_company without needing to inspect their 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 description gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Call before sending USDC or other funds to an address, for AML compliance and counterparty due diligence.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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