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

Annotations only declare readOnly and openWorld=false; the description adds real context: matching is fuzzy and alias-aware, results are informational only, and each call costs $0.005 USDC on Base via x402 — a payment prerequisite the agent cannot see in structured fields. It stops short of describing result shape or match threshold behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences: capability first, caveat second, cost last. Zero filler and no repetition of the name.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain what a screen returns (match list, scores) and what min_score and limit control. It covers payment and scope but leaves the caller guessing at result interpretation and the threshold parameter.

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 0% for 4 parameters, and the description only obliquely maps 'company, person, vessel or aircraft' to the type enum. It says nothing about min_score (fuzzy threshold), limit (result cap), or the q length constraints, leaving most inputs undocumented.

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 specific verb (fuzzy-screen) and resource (entity name with aliases) against named lists (OFAC SDN and Consolidated). The subject matter ('name') clearly separates it from sanctions_check_wallet, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 'informational, not legal advice' disclaimer and the cost hint imply a pre-transaction compliance use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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