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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds the reasons behind them: it stores a verification record (explaining the write), consumes credits from the Compliance data package, and queries external authoritative lists. That is real value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, and each clause (scope, match disclaiming, record storage, credit cost) carries distinct information. The single long semicolon-chained sentence is dense but not padded.

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, the description compensates by explaining that results are candidate matches requiring review and that a verification record is persisted. It leaves the response shape and whether credit is charged on failure unstated, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 name, country, and identifiers are already documented. The description adds only the 'legal entities only' constraint and a restatement that country and identifiers are optional, which is the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 (screen), a specific resource (company name), and the exact scope: outside the Karpata index, legal entities only, against named EU and OFAC SDN lists. An agent can distinguish this from get_risk or verify_company without opening either 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 phrase 'outside the Karpata index' implicitly sets the condition for choosing this tool over the index-based siblings, and the 'lead to review, not a verdict' note sets expectations for interpreting results. It does not, however, name a specific alternative for companies already in the index.

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