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.