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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: the verdict taxonomy (block/review/pass), what each match carries (SDN ID, programs, match strength), the list date, and that each call is charged so repeats are not free — which explains the idempotentHint=false. Pricing via x402 USDC or card key and 'failed calls free' are disclosed. Not a 5 only because the matching thresholds behind 'match strength' remain opaque.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the alternative tool and pricing trail behind it. Dense but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information; the pricing/billing sentence is the longest and the least essential to tool selection.

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 fully covers the return shape (verdict, per-match SDN ID/programs/match strength, list date). Combined with the pricing and safety framing, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by naming supported chains (BTC, ETH, USDT, TRX 'and more') and giving a concrete example address format. It still doesn't say what happens when both name and address are supplied (OR vs AND semantics).

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 and resource ('OFAC sanctions screen for a crypto wallet') plus the accepted input types (address on BTC/ETH/USDT/TRX, or a person/company name) against a named list (US Treasury SDN, aliases included). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling check_counterparty by scoping that tool to the fuller wallet-risk verdict.

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?

Explicit when: 'Use before paying'. Explicit alternative: 'full verdict with wallet risk: check_counterparty'. It also frames its own limits ('a screening aid, not legal advice'), so an agent knows both the trigger and the escalation path.

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