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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that bad formats are refused before payment, states the price and payment rail (x402, $0.009 USDC), and adds a 'not a legal determination' caveat. It stops short of describing rate limits, latency, or what happens on a valid-format but unlisted/unknown tx.

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 usage trigger, then input/output/behavior/price in a compact telegraphic style; every segment carries information. Slightly list-like density makes it less readable than prose, but there is no 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating returned fields (verdict, parties, roles, listed yes/no, SDN entity, programs, tx status, list date). Together with the input format and payment note this is nearly complete for a 2-param screening call; only error/edge behavior is left implicit.

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 baseline is 3, and the description adds real value beyond the schema by naming the accepted network values ('eip155:8453 default, or solana') which the schema leaves as an open string with no enum, plus a usage example '?tx=0x…'. It does not explain edge cases like what tx formats are rejected.

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 and resource ('screens its direct parties ... against OFAC SDN wallet addresses') and enumerates exactly what is screened on each chain (sender, recipient, contracts, Transfer parties on Base; accounts and token owners on Solana). This transaction-level scope is clearly distinguishable from the address-level siblings like sanctions_address and sanctions_screen.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when an agent must check a transaction before accepting or relaying funds.' That is a clear use context, but it does not name alternatives (e.g., when to prefer sanctions_address or sanctions_addr_batch instead) or state exclusions.

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