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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds limited behavioral context beyond that, such as the address-vs-name screening nuance, but does not disclose matching semantics, source-list behavior, or result confidence characteristics. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the use-case guidance earns its place by helping the agent select the tool.

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 simple read-only screening tool with a clear input schema and annotations, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly. The only notable gap is the absence of an output schema, but the description does not need to explain return values if they are straightforward and the tool purpose is clear.

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%, with all parameters clearly explained in the input schema. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond restating 'physical address' and 'listed addresses', so it appropriately relies on the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Match') and resource ('physical address') and clarifies the target ('listed addresses'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sanctions_screen_entity by focusing on address-based screening, and adds relevant context for KYC/supplier vetting.

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 gives a clear condition for when this tool is appropriate: 'when the counterparty's name is generic but the address is distinctive.' It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the guidance is practical and unambiguous.

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