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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does the most important thing: it discloses up front that the tool is unimplemented and that invoking it merely logs demand, preventing an agent from treating a call as a real screening result. It stops short of saying what the call actually returns or errors with, and it names a 'flag' input that the schema does not contain.

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, with the decisive caveat ('not yet served') placed first rather than buried. 'Roadmap probe' is slightly jargon-y but earns its place by compressing the stub status.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers the essential fact that the capability is absent. It leaves open what a call returns, whether the recorded requirement is visible anywhere, and what to do instead, which matters for an agent deciding whether calling has any value.

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%, so the two parameters (imo, name) are documented by the schema and a baseline 3 applies. The description adds little beyond echoing IMO and name, and its mention of 'flag' refers to an argument that does not exist in the schema, a small source of confusion rather than added meaning.

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 vessel ... against sanctions designations') and lists identifying inputs, so it is distinguishable from the sibling sanctions_screen by subject (vessel vs. entity/person). The qualifier 'Roadmap probe, not yet served' immediately signals the capability does not exist yet, which reframes purpose as requirement capture rather than screening.

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?

'Calling records the requirement' implies the only useful action and hints the tool is a demand-signal channel, which is adequate implied usage. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. find_capability, request_data, or sanctions_screen for non-vessel subjects), so an agent must infer what to do when a real vessel screen is needed.

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