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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the batch ceiling (up to 50 addresses), the covered chains, the source list, and the shape of the verdict (PASS or BLOCK with sanctioned party and program). It omits rate limits, cost, and whether results are cached or real-time.

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 short sentences, no filler. The resource and limits are front-loaded, and the usage cue is a clean trailing clause.

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?

Output schema exists, so the return-value burden is lifted, and the description covers coverage scope and purpose. The remaining gap is input formatting for the sole required parameter, which is undocumented in both schema and description and will cause malformed calls.

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 0% and the single required parameter is typed only as a bare string. The description compensates partially by revealing that it accepts multiple addresses and caps at 50, but never says how addresses are delimited (comma, newline, JSON array), which is exactly what an agent needs to format the call.

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 and resource: screen crypto addresses against the OFAC SDN digital-currency list, returning PASS/BLOCK. The resource (wallet addresses) is naturally distinguished from the sibling sanctions_name_screen, but the description never names that sibling explicitly, leaving the differentiation implicit.

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?

Gives a concrete usage directive: 'Use as a pre-payment AML gate,' which tells the agent both the context and the decision it feeds. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing at sanctions_name_screen for counterparty name checks.

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