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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses return contents (SDN ID, programs, match strength, list date), the legal-disclaimer stance ('screening aid, not legal advice'), pricing/rate terms ($0.005/call, first 25 free, failed calls free), and even explains why readOnlyHint is false ('not marked read-only because each call is charged'). This is unusually rich behavioral context with no contradiction of the annotations.

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-loads the core purpose, then layers returns, disclaimer, usage trigger, example, and pricing. Dense but nearly every sentence earns its place; the pricing and disclaimer are slightly tangent to tool selection but still relevant to invocation.

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 and no required parameters, the description compensates by describing the return shape and both optional inputs. An agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters' matching semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete example values (an ETH address and 'Lazarus Group') and clarifying that either or both may be supplied, which aids correct invocation.

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) and resource (crypto wallet address or person/company name) against a named dataset (US Treasury OFAC SDN list), including scope of aliases and listed digital currency addresses. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_counterparty, contract_risk, and wallet_audit.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('before paying, onboarding or trading with a counterparty'), giving a concrete decision context. However it does not name or exclude an alternative sibling (e.g. check_counterparty), so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternative treatment.

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