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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses a per-call cost (€0.04), the required Authorization: Bearer API-key authentication, the 24-hour list refresh lag, and the fuzzy-matching semantics that explain false positives and negatives. It also pre-empts the most dangerous misreading by stating that no match is not a clearance.

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 front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then caveats, cost, and finally parameters — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is a dense single paragraph, and a short separator or line break before the parameter glossary would make the parameter block easier to scan.

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 five-parameter screening tool with no annotations, the definition covers what an agent needs: sources, matching behaviour, return fields, cost, auth, refresh lag, and every parameter's domain and default. An output schema exists, so its brief mention of returned fields is sufficient rather than redundant.

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 0%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning, and it does: name accepts any script, type takes any/person/entity with 'any' as default, birth_year narrows person matches, threshold is a 0.80–1.00 score cut-off defaulting to 0.88, and lists takes ofac,eu,uk defaulting to all. This adds decisive meaning over the bare schema, which only declares untyped nullable strings.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Screens a person or company name') and names the exact data sources (US OFAC SDN, EU consolidated, UK Sanctions List) plus the matching method (fuzzy, transliteration-aware). This clearly separates it from adjacent siblings such as company_verify or entity_extract.

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?

It gives strong interpretive guidance — 'A match needs human review; no match is not a clearance' — plus cost and refresh cadence, which frame when and how to call it. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state conditions under which a different screening/verification tool should be used instead.

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