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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Deterministic' and 'issuing signed Ed25519 Non-Hit VCs' usefully signal that the result is a cryptographically signed credential, but it never states what happens on a hit (presumably no VC is issued), whether calls are billed (the fee parameter implies cost), or whether screening state is stored. These are material behaviors for a compliance tool with no structured disclosure.

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 with no wasted filler, which is good, but the density of unexplained acronyms (FSF, KYB, VC, AP2) makes it cryptic rather than efficient. Brevity here trades against comprehension.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain result shape, hit-vs-non-hit behavior, and cost. It hints at the credential output but omits outcome semantics and billing, leaving an agent unable to predict what a call will do or return in the negative case.

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 60%, leaving max_accepted_fee_eur and ap2_intent_mandate_id with no description anywhere. The description adds zero parameter meaning and is silent on the fee ceiling, which is the economically significant control, and on what an AP2 intent mandate is required for.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('KYB screening') and enumerates the exact sanctions lists screened (EU FSF, UN, OpenSanctions), plus the artifact produced (signed Ed25519 Non-Hit VCs). It is clearly distinct from the unrelated siblings (GDPR redaction, e-invoice validation). Domain jargon ('VCs', 'FSF', 'KYB') keeps it from being fully self-evident to a general agent.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what the prerequisites are (e.g., a mandate ID requirement). Siblings are in completely different domains so no differentiation is needed, but the agent is given no situational triggers.

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