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

Adds a lot beyond the annotations: verdict semantics (block/review/pass), match fields, cost model ($0.009/call, first 25 free, failed calls free) and the fact that repeats are charged, which explains the idempotentHint=false flag. It does not say what happens with zero parameters or how partial name matches degrade, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Single paragraph that front-loads the action, scope and usage trigger, then layers in return shape, pricing and the example. Dense but every block earns its place; the sample address and parenthetical cost/key detail make it slightly overstuffed for one sentence flow.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the verdict values and per-match fields. Combined with pricing, disclaimer and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it 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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds marginal context — accepted chain families and that names match aliases — but the alias rule is largely repeated from the schema's own wording.

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 and resource — checking a crypto wallet address or person/company name against the OFAC SDN list — and enumerates supported chains (EVM, BTC, USDT, TRX). It distinguishes itself from the closely related check_counterparty by scoping itself to SDN screening.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('before you pay it or accept funds', 'Use before paying') and names the alternative for the adjacent job ('with wallet risk: check_counterparty'). An agent knows both when to call this and where to route a broader wallet-risk question.

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