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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that each list is fetched from the issuing authority, that alternate spellings come from ALT.CSV, and that the UN list is deliberately omitted due to licensing. It also discloses the quota/pricing model ('free in quota, then $0.02/call'), which is useful cost-awareness context not present in 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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key exclusions and pricing. Every sentence earns its place: the list enumeration, the UN exclusion with rationale, and the cost note. It is slightly long but not bloated, and the most decision-relevant information (what is screened and what is not) appears early.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the main things an agent needs: what lists are searched, what is excluded and why, and the cost model. It does not describe the output format or match scoring, but since there is no output schema and the tool is a simple screening lookup, a brief note on return shape would have made it complete. Still, the coverage is strong for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a little context by mentioning alternate spellings (ALT.CSV), which implies why the 'name' parameter may match variants, but it does not add meaningfully beyond the schema for 'type' or 'country'. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Free screening') and a precise resource ('a name or entity against official sanctions lists'), then enumerates the exact lists covered (OFAC SDN, EU consolidated, UK FCDO). It also explicitly names what is NOT covered (UN Consolidated List) and why, which sharply distinguishes it from any sibling that might look similar.

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 clearly states the tool's scope and the data sources, and it explicitly excludes the UN list with a licensing rationale, which helps an agent decide when not to rely on it. It does not name sibling tools or provide explicit 'use this instead when...' guidance, but the context signals show siblings are unrelated (get_outcome, get_status, etc.), so the exclusion of the UN list is the main routing guidance and it is clear.

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