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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and nicely discloses key behaviors: live OFAC list, chain segmentation, return of verdict with evidence, and the 'never a silent all-clear' guarantee. The payment flow is transparently explained, though error edge cases are not mentioned.

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?

Four sentences deliver purpose, output behavior, payment flow, and a pointer to the pricing tool. Front-loaded with the core action, every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 paid screening tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers verdict, evidence, chain segmentation, and payment mechanics. It could be more explicit about the no-match result format (e.g., whether 'no entries' means clear), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that omitting x_payment returns exact terms and that calling again with x_payment settles the payment, and clarifies the address is in the chain's native format (also in schema).

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 states a specific action ('Screen a crypto address against the full live OFAC SDN list') and provides clear output details (verdict with matching SDN entries as evidence). It also notes the chain-scoped nature, distinguishing it from general address tools like ens_resolve or token_safety.

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 clearly explains the two-step payment flow and when to use the pricing tool as an alternative for getting all prices. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool versus siblings, but the screening purpose is unambiguous and contextual.

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