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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: cost per name, billing from API key credit, and the exact sanction lists checked. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like response format, error cases (e.g., invalid names, unfunded account), or whether the operation is read-only, which limits transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and capacity ('Screen up to 500 names'), then adds pricing and billing details. Every clause contributes value with no redundancy or excessive length.

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 covers the core scope (lists, batch size, cost) but lacks critical context for a paid API tool with no output schema: it does not hint at the response structure, match details, or error handling. It also omits threshold semantics. For a batch screening tool, these are notable gaps.

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 low (33%, only api_key described). The description adds meaning for the names parameter by stating the 500-name limit and per-name pricing, and the api_key parameter is described in the schema. However, the threshold parameter (range 0.5-1) is not explained at all, leaving a gap that the description does not compensate for.

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 uses the specific verb 'Screen' with a clear resource ('up to 500 names') and explicitly lists the sanction lists (OFAC SDN, OFAC Consolidated, UN, EU, UK OFSI). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like screen_name (single name) and screen_crypto_address (crypto addresses).

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 implies batch use for multiple names and highlights a cost advantage over single-call pricing ('25% below single-call price'), indicating when to prefer this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for a single name, use screen_name).

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