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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it returns a structured, audited deliverable and that inputs are validated server-side. It does not disclose rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only tool with annotations, this is acceptable.

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 overlong and includes marketing fluff ('Gapup agent-payable C-suite expertise (RISK)') and a repetitive 'Answers:' list. The reference case is useful but could be condensed. It is not appropriately sized; every sentence does not earn its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It mentions 'structured, audited deliverable' and composite risk score, and the reference case illustrates the output format. However, it omits async behavior (despite the async parameter) and fails to clarify the full set of parameters, leaving gaps for a complex tool with 10 parameters.

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 very low (10%), so the description must compensate. It partially does by referencing entity, jurisdiction lists, and adverse media, but it leaves most parameters (address, aliases, date_of_birth, country_of_registration, context_note) unexplained. The phrase 'send the documented case fields' is vague and shifts the burden to external documentation.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: run full OFAC, EU, UK HMT, UN, SECO, Canada SEMA, PEP, and adverse media screening with a composite risk score. It distinguishes from siblings like kyc_screener by focusing on multi-list sanctions and PEP checks, and provides concrete example questions and a reference case.

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 description conveys clear context: use for sanctions/PEP/adverse media screening, M&A target/supplier/LP compliance checks, and compliance recommendations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the examples effectively indicate when this tool should be invoked.

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