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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is well covered. The description does add one trait beyond the annotations — per-call charging against an API balance and a test-key mode — which is genuinely useful pre-call context. It stops short of describing match semantics, thresholds or what a hit looks like.

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, tightly front-loaded with the lists covered, then the cost/access note. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 call with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is screened, against which lists, and the billing model. It lacks any statement of return shape or match-confidence behavior and gives no routing guidance among the three overlapping screening siblings, which keeps it short of complete.

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% and all three parameters (name, type enum, country) are documented in the schema. The description adds no format, defaulting or matching detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage 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 (screen) and enumerates the resources covered: six US export-control lists including the Entity List, plus UK, UN, EU and OFAC sanctions lists. This is far more concrete than the sibling names screen_sanctions or sanctions_lists, but it never explicitly says how it differs from those siblings, so an agent must infer the split.

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 phrase 'screen a buyer, consignee or supplier' implies the intended use case, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus screen_sanctions, sanctions_lists or run_suite_check, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the billing note.

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