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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the capability is not served, that the call has a side effect (recording the requirement), and that the return is a structured not-covered response. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to avoid mistaking the result for a real PEP 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?

Three short sentences, with the critical qualifier ('Roadmap probe, not yet served') front-loaded before any details. No wasted text.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the alternative route. The only gap is that the shape of the 'structured not-covered response' is not described, which an agent might want when parsing the result.

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%, but the schema descriptions are tautological ('name', 'country'), so structured fields add little meaning. The description itself says nothing about name or country semantics, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (PEP screening) and immediately qualifies the tool as an unimplemented roadmap probe. It also names the live sibling path (sanctions-only screening), so an agent can distinguish this stub from sanctions_screen without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what calling does ('records the requirement', returns a structured not-covered response) and routes real screening to the live alternative at /v1/screen/sanctions. There is no ambiguity about when this tool is and is not the right choice.

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