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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: pricing ($0.02 USDC per call via x402), that cost is only incurred on success, and that alias matching is included. It does not describe result semantics, but the pricing/billing disclosure is the key addition.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler; the core action and scope come first, the billing detail last. Every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so one could argue the description should hint at result shape (match/no-match, confidence), which it does not. However, it fully covers inputs, safety profile via annotations, and cost, which are the essentials an agent needs to invoke correctly.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description confirms name screening covers aliases and that EIN is optional and tied to nonprofit data, which adds marginal meaning but nothing beyond the schema's intent.

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 precise verb+resource: screens a person or business name against the OFAC SDN list, with an optional EIN check against IRS Publication 78. The scope ('including aliases') further sharpens it, and it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_dependency_vulnerabilities or validate_email_or_domain.

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 use case is implied clearly by naming the sanctions list and the optional nonprofit check, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named or compared. For a screening tool with distinct siblings, that routing guidance is absent.

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