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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure. It reveals the 'never a silent all-clear' guarantee and explains the two-step payment handshake (call without x_payment for terms, then call again with x_payment for data). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 only three sentences: purpose, output guarantee, and payment flow. It is front-loaded with the core action and every sentence carries essential information without 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?

This is a paid, two-phase API with no output schema. The description covers the two-step payment, the response shape (verdict with evidence), and the pricing alternative. It could elaborate on the verdict structure, but it is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 descriptions already cover 100% of parameters, including chain enum, address format, and x_payment flow. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool screens a crypto address against the full live OFAC SDN list, segmented by chain. This is a specific verb (screen) plus a well-defined resource, and the chain segmentation differentiates it from broader sanctions screening 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?

The description explains the two-phase paid call flow and explicitly points to the free `pricing` tool as an alternative for price lists. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus `sanctions_screen` or `sanctions_entity`, so the guidance is context-rich but lacks explicit exclusions.

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