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

The description is transparent about deterministic behavior and the curated local blocklist, but it contradicts the openWorldHint annotation. It says 'Absence of a match is not a sanctions clearance,' implying an open-world result, while openWorldHint is false, suggesting a closed-world result. This is an annotation contradiction.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the caveats follow immediately. Every sentence 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 single-parameter deterministic screen with an output schema and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description fully covers scope, limitations, and follow-up usage. The only issue is the openWorldHint contradiction, which is already reflected in behavioral transparency.

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?

There is only one parameter, subject, and schema description coverage is 100%. The schema already documents that it accepts an EVM address or ISO 3166-1 country code/jurisdiction name, so the description adds no additional parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Deterministic screen of EVM addresses and jurisdictions against a curated local blocklist.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from name-based screening and a complete OFAC SDN check, so an agent can clearly understand what this tool does and does not do.

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 description explicitly marks exclusions: 'NOT name-based screening and NOT a complete OFAC SDN check.' It also gives clear usage context: 'use as one informational input alongside your own compliance process.' This leaves little ambiguity about when to rely on the tool.

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