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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully adds paid cost, list coverage, GLEIF resolution, parent screening and match freshness metadata, but does not cover auth requirements, threshold behavior, error/no-match behavior or whether it is read-only.

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 compact and front-loads the cost and core purpose, with no wasted sentences. It is slightly dense in combining scope, parent screening and match metadata, but is appropriately sized.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description needs to be self-sufficient for a 5-parameter tool. It covers purpose, cost, list coverage, resolution path and match metadata, but omits threshold behavior, what happens if neither lei nor name is supplied, and auth expectations beyond the schema.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds that lei/name are alternative resolution keys and that lists maps to UK/EU/UN, but threshold and access_token semantics are left to the schema, and no additional format or default guidance is provided.

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 combined action: screen a name against UK/EU/UN sanctions lists and resolve on GLEIF, including parent screening. It is clearer than the name alone and tells an agent this is a composite sanctions+GLEIF check, though it never names or contrasts sibling tools such as sanctions_check or lei_lookup.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The mention of 'Global counterparty check' and 'PRO ($0.05)' implies a paid single-counterparty screen, but it does not say to prefer it over sanctions_check, lei_lookup, batch_screen or global_batch_screen.

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