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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It reveals the paid nature, the two-step payment handshake, and the necessity to settle before receiving data. It does not describe output format or error cases, but the core transactional behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct role: purpose, payment workflow, and pricing alternative. No redundant wording; the description is front-loaded with the core action 'Screen vessels'.

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 the tool's complexity (paid API with a payment handshake, multiple search parameters) and lack of output schema, the description provides a complete invocation path: how to query, how to handle payment terms, and where to find pricing. It does not explain the result payload, but that can be inferred from the screening context.

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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions and examples (100% coverage), but the description adds semantic meaning: it clarifies fuzzy name matching, exact call sign, and IMO number, and explains that x_payment is for the payment handshake (omit first to get terms, include to settle). This enriches the schema baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the tool screens vessels against OFAC maritime designations, listing specific search criteria (fuzzy name, exact call sign, IMO) and flag filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sanctions_entity or domain_intel.

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?

Provides explicit payment flow instructions: call without x_payment to receive terms, then call again with x_payment. Also points to the free pricing tool as an alternative for price lists. Does not explicitly contrast with sanctions_screen or entity tools, but the domain context implies vessel-specific usage.

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