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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the description earns credit for what annotations cannot say: every response reports which lists were checked and how current they were, every match links to its official source, and pricing is $0.01 per name screened. It omits error behavior and rate limits, but the coverage of sourcing, freshness and cost is substantive.

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 lead sentence answers the core question immediately, followed by sourcing, audience and pricing — a sensible front-loaded order. The parenthetical enumeration of Commerce/State sub-lists is slightly heavy but still earns its place by naming what is actually checked.

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 six optional parameters, no output schema and no required inputs, the definition covers inputs and provenance well, but never describes the shape of the response beyond provenance fields — match scores, counts, or how empty results read. An agent knows what to send and roughly what comes back, but not enough to parse or assert on the result.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by clarifying that names cover companies, vessels and persons, that addresses are screened exactly against OFAC-listed wallets across chains (XBT, ETH, USDT, TRX), and that billing is per name screened. It does not explain how minScore or country affect results beyond the schema text.

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 question the tool answers ("is this company, vessel or person sanctioned?") and enumerates the exact sources screened (OFAC SDN/non-SDN, US CSL, UK, EU, UN) plus crypto address screening. This is clearly distinguishable from the siblings counterparty_check and plan_official_records_query, which imply broader or planning-oriented workflows.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts — KYB, compliance and procurement checks, and "before an agent pays" for wallet screening — so the agent knows when it is the right call. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions (e.g., when to prefer counterparty_check or a full official-records query), which keeps it from a 5.

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