Sanctionlistcheck.com

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to re-litigate safety. It adds genuinely new context the annotations lack: the call has no cost, and the response includes both the current balance and recent movements. It stops short of describing auth requirements or any rate limits for the movements data.

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 waste, and the resource being fetched is front-loaded ahead of the cost note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary in the description, and the absence of parameters means no input semantics are missing. For a simple read-only, parameterless tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter behavior for the description to explain or compensate for.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (credit balance for your API key) and adds scope detail (latest credit movements). The sibling tools (get_record, list_sources, screen_names) cover entirely different resources, so an agent can tell this apart from all of them immediately.

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?

"This tool is free to use" gives a cost-based cue about when it is cheap to call, which is mild usage guidance. However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied rather than articulated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one trait beyond that: 'free to use', which is genuinely useful billing context not present in structured fields, but it omits anything about return behaviour or lookup failure.

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, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the billing note appended. Every element carries information.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it. It is slightly thin on routing (when to prefer this over siblings) but nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented (pattern, meaning, and the fact it comes from screen_names). The description's 'by its record id' merely restates the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Fetch a previously stored screening record by its record id'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it never contrasts itself with siblings like list_sources or screen_names, so it relies on the agent to infer the distinction from the resource name.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Previously stored' faintly implies it is a follow-up to an earlier write/screen operation, but neither the alternative (screen_names) nor any conditions/exclusions are named in the description.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: exactly 10 official lists, data-as-of dates, current daily snapshot, and no API key requirement. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by access conditions. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 zero-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could better connect the tool to sibling workflows, but the essential purpose, freshness, and access requirements are covered.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are largely irrelevant. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, and the empty schema is sufficient.

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 verb and resource: it provides the 10 official sanctions lists and their data-as-of dates from the current daily snapshot. This clearly identifies the tool's output, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as screen_names.

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 explains what the tool returns and notes that it is free and requires no API key, but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like screen_names or get_record. The agent must infer its role as a discovery step.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly false, destructive false, openWorld false), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: per-name credit cost, the audit-oriented nature, and the crucial caveat that hits are only candidates requiring further assessment rather than confirmed matches. It does not restate annotation content, though it stays silent on latency or failure modes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, and no filler. The sentence enumerating response fields (record id, snapshot version, data-as-of dates, engine version) partially duplicates the output schema, which is the only mildly redundant element.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description still covers scope, cost, idempotent-retry implications, and the review caveat. Remaining gaps (what threshold defaults to, processing time for 100 names) are minor for this tool class.

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 100%, so the schema already documents names, dob, type, country, threshold, and idempotency_key. The description adds only the batching cap ('1 to 100') and the one-credit-per-name cost model; it says nothing about the threshold parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('sanctions screening of 1 to 100 names') plus scope ('against 10 official lists'), which cleanly separates it from siblings get_balance, get_record, and list_sources. An agent can identify this as the screening action without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: screening is what this tool does, and 'hits are candidates for human review' hints at the downstream workflow. It never names an alternative or a when-not condition (e.g. use get_record to re-fetch an existing screening), so routing must be inferred.

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