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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: discloses the signed response, hourly-refreshed validated snapshot, dataset provenance, the refusal-before-payment behavior when data is unavailable, and the important caveat that a non-match is not legal clearance. Extremely rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core matching action, then return values, caveats, and the call-to-action. Dense but each clause (dataset, refresh cadence, exclusions, refusal behavior) carries distinct information; minor verbosity in 'digital currency address identifiers'.

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 no output schema present, the description fully explains what is returned (signed listed/not_listed, SDN entry, provenance, limits). For a single-parameter screening tool, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly, including the legal-clearance caveat.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already documents the '0x + 40 hex' format. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (exact match) and resource (EVM wallet address) with precision about the target dataset (OFAC SDN digital currency address identifiers). This clearly distinguishes it from screen_name and the verify_* company tools, which screen different entity types.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call before sending funds to an address') and clear scope exclusions ('SDN only: not EU/UN/UK lists'). It stops short of routing the agent to a named alternative tool for other sanctions regimes, so it isn't quite a 5.

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