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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by naming the indexed sources and stating that potential matches require human/compliance review. However, it does not disclose the output format, match certainty, or whether results include non-matches, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core operation and entity scope are front-loaded, and the compliance-review caveat is placed right after, giving the reader the operational and risk-relevant context efficiently.

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 tool, the description covers purpose, applicable names, data sources, and a meaningful follow-up requirement (human/compliance review). It could be improved by stating what the tool returns or by mentioning sibling-tool trade-offs, but nothing essential for 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?

The schema already fully documents the only parameter ('Name to screen'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic detail by specifying that the name should be a company, vendor, or counterparty and by listing which sanctions lists will be searched, going slightly beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly identifies the action (screen), the target entity types (company, vendor, counterparty name), and the specific sanctions sources (OFAC SDN, non-SDN, UK, UN). This makes it readily distinguishable from sibling tools like check_domain, resolve_company, and vendor_preflight.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a business name must be checked against official sanctions lists. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to an alternative such as vendor_preflight, which may be the broader compliance-oriented option.

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