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

Annotations already mark this readOnly and open-world, so the description focuses on added context: the screening scope, the explicit limitation (no fraud pattern detection), and a pricing signal. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the structured hints, though it says nothing about what a match/non-match result looks like.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the sibling comparison and cost. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not indicate what screening returns (match/no-match, risk score, list citation) or pagination/limits. For a screening tool the input scope is adequately conveyed, but the result contract is unaddressed.

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 only 33% and the schema is deeply nested, yet the description only clarifies that the name is core and the crypto wallet is optional. The large context and payment objects (urgency, bank-details-changed, prior payment, amount, method) are left to the schema and get no explanation in the description.

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), resource (payee name plus optional crypto wallet), and scope (OFAC sanctions lists and embargoed jurisdictions). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling check_counterparty by noting it is faster/cheaper but does not detect fraud patterns.

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?

Names the alternative (check_counterparty) and states the trade-off that selects between them, plus the $0.05 cost. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when / don't use this when' rule, so the agent must infer that this is for sanctions-only needs.

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