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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial behavior: fuzzy matching with aliases and transliteration, daily refresh of source files, a cost model ($0.01 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc with failed calls not charged), and an explicit legal disclaimer. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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-loaded with the core action and resource, then layers matching behavior, return shape, disclaimer and pricing. Four dense sentences with little waste, though the pricing/return sentence could be trimmed since an output schema exists.

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 paid, read-only screening tool the description covers scope, matching method, data freshness, cost and limitations, and an output schema already defines the return structure. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide or invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including the threshold range and list names. The description reinforces how country, DOB and threshold influence the match score but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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') plus the exact resource (one person, company, vessel or aircraft name) and enumerates the five named lists checked. An agent can immediately tell this apart from sibling tools like company_registry, lei, uk_company or violations.

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 conveys context ('screening aid, not a legal determination', official files refreshed daily) and hints that country/DOB/type 'sharpen the score', but never states when to choose this over adjacent siblings such as company_registry, lei or uk_insolvency. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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