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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds significant behavioral context: 'conservative fuzzy matching', 'match methodology metadata', 'list version binding for GSR verification', and 'Cryptographically attested with a post-quantum signed settlement receipt'. This discloses internal matching behavior and output characteristics beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with usage intent, and every sentence adds value: purpose, matching methodology, source, and verification. There is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 read-only screening tool with only four parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, source, matching behavior, and attestation. However, the lack of parameter semantics is a notable gap, and the description does not fully explain the result structure beyond metadata mentions, which prevents a perfect score.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (alias, country, entity_type, entity_name). It only implies entity_name is screened via fuzzy matching, but provides no details on how the other parameters affect screening. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 Treasury SDN and Consolidated lists' with a specific verb and resource. It also provides the source ('Source: Treasury OFAC synced lists') and differentiates from sibling screening tools like OIG and SAM by explicitly mentioning OFAC.

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 begins with 'Use when onboarding a vendor, counterparty, or individual requires OFAC sanctions screening with attested results', giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the specific OFAC focus makes it clear when to use this tool.

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