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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.05 Base USDC, x402 endpoint), the components included, and the requirement of an address. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has any side effects, which is a minor gap for a screening tool.

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 sentence that packs the purpose, cost, endpoint, and alternative usage, with the main function front-loaded. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 lists all bundle components but does not explain how optional parameters map to those components—for example, whether providing a domain is required to get domain checks. There is no output schema, and the response format is not described, leaving ambiguity for a tool with this 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?

The schema provides full descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond reinforcing that an address is required. It mentions domain and receipt but does not elaborate on their role in the bundle, so it contributes marginal value over the schema.

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 as a compliance bundle covering OFAC, entity sanctions, domain, firmographics, and signed receipt. It also explicitly differentiates it from sibling tools by saying 'Use instead of stacking wallet_screen + research,' making its purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 direct guidance on when to use this tool, explicitly naming the alternative (stacking wallet_screen + research) and the condition (needs an address). It also includes the cost, which is relevant for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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