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 the two behaviors that matter: the call has a side effect (the requirement is recorded) and the response is a fixed 'not-covered' with no data. It omits where the record lands, whether it is deduplicated, or rate limits, but the critical 'this does nothing useful for screening' signal is stated plainly.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the disqualifying status ('not yet served') front-loaded before the operational detail. Nothing repeats the title gratuitously.

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 stub tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description conveys what an agent needs: it will not get screening results and the call is logged. The missing piece is guidance on which sibling to use for real adverse media needs, but the core caveat is complete.

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 100% for the single 'name' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not clarify whether name is a person, company, or free-text subject, which would be the one useful addition here.

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 names the intended resource (adverse media screening with citations) and immediately qualifies it as 'roadmap probe, not yet served', then states the actual runtime behavior: records the requirement, returns not-covered. That distinguishes it from real screening siblings like pep_screen and sanctions_screen. It stops short of 5 only because the name implies functioning screening, so the true purpose is only clarified in the second clause.

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 'not yet served' phrasing implies the agent should not rely on it for actual screening, and 'calling records the requirement' implies a demand-capture use case. However, it never states explicitly when to call it versus pep_screen or sanctions_screen, nor what an agent should do instead when it needs adverse media data.

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