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

With no annotations to carry behavioral information, the description fully discloses what the tool returns (matches scored 0-100, one record per list), the consumption cost (SCREEN), the base64 PDF certificate behavior, and a legal caveat about due diligence. This goes far beyond a minimal 'screen lists' statement.

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 dense but every phrase adds meaning: purpose, parameter usage, output shape, cost, and legal caveat are all stated with no repetition. It is front-loaded with the action and scope.

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?

Without an output schema, it still describes the result format enough for an agent to anticipate what it will receive. It also covers all input parameters, the list sources, country scope, cost, and the tool's limitation as evidence, so the definition is complete for invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains name, optional country with ISO format example, tax_id for national matching, and certificate=true for a PDF base64 output, covering all four declared parameters.

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 opens with a specific action and object: screening a name or entity against sanctions, PEP, and national lists. It enumerates the exact lists and countries, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinguishing it from one-off verification or monitoring siblings.

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?

It clearly communicates the screening use case, the optional cross-checks, and the certificate option, and adds the caveat that it is evidence rather than compliance certification. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, though the purpose statement implies when it applies.

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