Australia Sanctions Screening MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the 50-name cap and the return shape ('match counts and top hit each'), but says nothing about auth/entitlement requirements ('PRO.' is unexplained), rate limits, quota consumption, partial failures, or what happens to names that fail to match.

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 clauses with the batch limit and return shape front-loaded after a tier marker; no wasted words. The 'PRO.' tag is terse but its meaning is never unpacked, which slightly weakens the front-loading.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return value, but with no annotations and an undocumented `names` parameter, an agent still lacks the auth expectations and per-item result semantics needed to call it confidently.

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 50%: access_token is documented in-schema, but `names` has no description, maxItems, or item semantics. The description partially compensates by establishing the 50-name cap, yet never says whether entries are people, companies, or free-form queries, so the core parameter stays ambiguous.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Screen up to 50 names') with the batch capacity stated up front, plus a return-value summary. It implies a batch counterpart to screen_name/screen_search but never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the '50 names' capacity alone.

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 'up to 50 names' limit hints that this is the multi-name path, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-screen_name guidance and no stated exclusions or prerequisites beyond the ambiguous 'PRO.' prefix.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful traits: the call is free, the source list is DFAT, and results are capped at the top 5. It says nothing about matching semantics (fuzzy vs exact), what a match record contains, or whether zero results is a normal outcome.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the cost signal, with zero filler. Both the scope and the output size are conveyed in a single read.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers cost, data source, and result cardinality — the essentials. It is still thin on input expectations and on what a 'match' looks like, which an agent would want before calling.

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?

The single parameter is named 'name' with 0% schema description coverage, so the description only confirms it expects a person or entity name. It adds no format, required structure, or example that would help an agent construct the value correctly.

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 states a specific verb (screen), resource (one name), data source (Australia DFAT sanctions targets), and result shape (top 5 matches). The phrase 'one name' implicitly separates it from the batch sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'FREE' and 'one name' imply the right context — low-cost, single-record lookups — but the description never states when to reach for batch_screen or screen_search instead. Usage must be inferred from the wording rather than read from it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully mentions a result cap ('Up to 100'), but does not explain authentication requirements, read-only behavior, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation consumes subscriber quota.

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 sentence is short, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The leading 'PRO.' token is unexplained and does not help an agent understand or invoke 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry more context. It does not explain authentication, result structure, pagination, or how this differs from the sibling screening tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 50%, but the description partially compensates by clarifying that the required query parameter represents a name or keyword. The access_token parameter is undocumented in the description, though its schema entry does describe it as a subscriber token.

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 states that the tool returns DFAT sanction matches for a name or keyword, which gives a recognizable resource and result type. However, it lacks an explicit verb, never explains what 'PRO' means, and does not distinguish the tool from sibling tools like screen_name or batch_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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus batch_screen or screen_name, nor any prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The only contextual hint is the implicit use case of looking up matches for a single name/keyword.

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