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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds significant behavioral detail: conservative fuzzy matching, match methodology metadata, list version binding, cryptographic attestation with post-quantum signing, and a verification URL. It also discloses the per-call cost, which is valuable for decision-making.

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 somewhat long but well-structured, front-loading the use case, then method, source, attestation, and cost. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing critical details.

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?

It covers purpose, matching method, data source, attestation, and cost, which is strong for a read-only tool with annotations. However, it lacks parameter semantics and does not describe the output format (no output schema), so an agent may need to infer what 'attested results' look like. The mention of 'match methodology metadata' hints at output but is not explicit.

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 no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It does not explain the parameters (entity_name, alias, country, entity_type) beyond mentioning that entity_name is required. The description focuses on tool behavior rather than parameter meanings, leaving agents to infer from names and schema types.

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's purpose: screening for OFAC sanctions with attested results, specifically for onboarding vendors, counterparties, or individuals. It names the exact resource (Treasury SDN and Consolidated lists) and differentiates from sibling screening tools like get_oig_exclusion_screening and get_sam_exclusion_screening by highlighting the attestation and OFAC specificity.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when onboarding... requires OFAC sanctions screening with attested results'), and includes practical context like the $1.00 USDC cost. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the clear use-case and differentiation from siblings make it sufficiently clear.

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