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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses the regulatory scope screened (a useful trait beyond the name). However, it says nothing about whether this is a read-only lookup, what the result contains (matches, risk scores, thresholds), or any rate/cost characteristics.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope with zero filler. Nothing is repeated and every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage but no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It should say more about what a screening result looks like (e.g., match/no-match, list hits), since no output schema exists to carry that information.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the jurisdiction_scope enum and target examples. The description adds no syntax, matching, or scoping nuance beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.

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 gives a specific verb ('Screens') and enumerates the resources it accepts (companies, countries, regimes, keywords) along with the exact regulatory frameworks (OFAC 31 CFR, BIS 15 CFR EAR). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling resolve_us_import_compliance, leaving the import-vs-export boundary for the agent to infer.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description makes it obvious you invoke this to check an entity against sanctions/export rules, but it never states when to prefer it over resolve_us_import_compliance or what preconditions exist. No when-not guidance is offered.

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