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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions the Jaro-Winkler fuzzy matching algorithm, the exact cost, and the X-PAYMENT authentication requirement. It also states the return fields. It does not elaborate on the destructiveHint, leaving that annotation unexplained, but the side-effecting payment behavior makes the annotations non-contradictory.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then returns, algorithm, cost, and authentication. Every sentence adds critical information with no fluff or repetition of the schema.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately lists the key return fields, and it covers prerequisites (payment header) and cost. It does not address error handling or failover scenarios, but for a screening tool this is reasonably complete.

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 parameter descriptions already document every field. The description adds modest value by indicating that fuzzy matching applies to entity names and that the tool returns sanctions match details, but it does not enrich parameter semantics meaningfully.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Screen an entity against AML watchlists'), names concrete resources (OFAC SDN, UN sanctions), and lists expected return values (risk level, risk score, recommendation, sanctions match details). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like kyc_check or risk_report by focusing on AML-specific watchlists and output.

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 clearly communicates when to use the tool: when AML watchlist screening is needed. It also provides necessary usage prerequisites such as the signed X-PAYMENT header and cost per screening. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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