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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/int/destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral details: keyless no-login access, match-score output, and cost per call ($0.01/call, x402). It also notes 'live' lists, giving the agent a good sense of what to expect without contradicting 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, the second adds key differentiators (keyless, match score, use case), and the final clause gives pricing. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description provides a high-level understanding of return behavior ('flags potential hits with a match score') and the use case. It covers cost and auth, but could be slightly richer on response structure or error handling. For a simple screening tool, this is adequate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'match score' in relation to screening, but does not elabor further on minScore or maxConcurrency semantics. It relies on the schema for parameter details, which is acceptable.

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 a specific verb ('Screen') and resource ('live OFAC SDN and EU consolidated sanctions lists'), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like sanctions-update-alert by focusing on name screening. The use case of 'before onboarding a client or counterparty' further clarifies its purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('before onboarding a client or counterparty') and notes keyless access, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. This aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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