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

The description discloses key behavioral aspects: deterministic matching, typo tolerance, fuzzy matching logic, and the specific sanction lists involved. It also transparently states the per-call cost, which is a behavioral factor. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., no match, multiple matches) or error handling, but the provided details are substantial.

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 efficiently structured: it opens with the primary action, then enumerates the target lists, followed by the matching behavior and cost. It fits in two sentences with no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description gives the core purpose and behavioral traits, but it omits practical details such as how to handle results (no output schema), potential limitations (e.g., regex vs. fuzzy matching nuances), or interaction with other parameters like threshold. It also fails to mention whether the tool supports batch processing or if there are rate limits. Some context is present, but gaps remain for a fully self-sufficient description.

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 description provides no explanation of any parameter (e.g., name, dob, threshold, types). While the input schema includes descriptions for four of six parameters, the description itself adds zero value to parameter understanding. The threshold parameter, in particular, is left unexplained, and the description does not clarify how parameters interact (e.g., dob affecting matching). Coverage is below 80%, so no 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: screening names against a comprehensive list of sanctions and exclusion lists (OFAC, UN, UK, etc.). It also specifies the matching approach (deterministic, typo-tolerant fuzzy) and the cost, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., screen_names_batch, scan_text). It does not mention prerequisites like having an API key, nor does it clarify typical use cases beyond the basic screening action. The cost note implies an API key but doesn't explicitly state requirements or recommended usage scenarios.

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