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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description earns credit mainly for the quota/cost disclosure (1,000 free queries/month, paid plan pricing) and for noting that results carry confidence scores. That is real behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it omits anything about match ordering or result volume.

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 sentence and the return behavior follows immediately. The pricing sentence is the weakest link, mildly tangential, but it does convey cost awareness rather than pure filler.

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 correctly compensates by stating that matches are returned with confidence scores, and all four parameters are documented in the schema. It stops short of explaining match shape, ordering, or how threshold interacts with returned results, which would fully round it out.

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%, so the schema already documents name, limit, sources, and threshold with defaults and ranges. The description only gestures at the source lists and confidence scoring, adding no syntax or interpretation beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb ("Screen") and resource ("a single name or entity") and enumerates the exact source lists (OFAC SDN, EU consolidated, UN consolidated, BIS DPL), which is highly concrete. The word "single" implicitly separates it from sanctions_screen_batch, but no sibling is named outright, so differentiation still requires inference.

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?

Usage context is implied by "single name or entity" and by the batch sibling's existence, but the description never states when to prefer sanctions_screen_batch, sanctions_search_alias, or sanctions_get_entity, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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