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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it discloses data provenance (primary government sources), configurability of list sets, and the exact response shape (verdict, candidate hits with scores, list versions, retrieval timestamps). It omits practical traits such as threshold defaults, latency, or whether lists are cached/refreshed and how often.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, source scope second, return payload third, exclusions last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded before the boundary clause.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return payload (verdict, scored candidate hits, list versions, timestamps), which is exactly what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the unspecified default and tuning behavior of the optional threshold parameter.

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% and both parameters are documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's reference to 'scores' loosely connects to the threshold parameter but adds no default value, tuning guidance, or interpretation of threshold 0..1 beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource ('Screen a person or entity name against sanctions lists') plus the exact data provenance (OFAC SDN/consolidated, UK Sanctions List). The closing clause explicitly rules out PEP and adverse-media screening, routing the agent away from pep_screen and adverse_media siblings, and the 'person or entity' scoping implicitly distinguishes it from vessel_sanctions.

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?

Gives a clear negative boundary ('Not a PEP or adverse-media screen') that names the alternative tools to use instead, and the source-list enumeration tells the agent what coverage to expect. It stops short of stating positive trigger conditions (e.g., onboarding/KYC screening) or prerequisites, so it is clear context without full when/when-not guidance.

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