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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful context: experimental status, variable coverage/freshness by dataset, and the critical warning that risk_score is not a compliance determination and a non-match is not clearance. Rate limits and latency behavior are unmentioned.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and caveat, with no filler. Every clause carries information, though the disclaimer sentence is long enough to slightly dilute the core action.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return shape (per-dataset match counts plus an indicative 0-100 risk_score) and its interpretive limits. Combined with the full schema coverage, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool, though return structure detail (dataset names, ordering) is absent.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% — the schema already documents that 'name' is a substring match. The description adds the useful scope detail that it takes exactly one name (implying batch names belong elsewhere), but nothing about matching semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'lookup of one name across MORVS's local public-record indexes,' and clarifies single-name scope. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like screen_batch, sanctions_check, watchlist, or debarments_check, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are offered. 'Experimental' and 'availability is not guaranteed' are caveats about reliability, not conditions for selecting this tool over screen_batch (batch names) or the more specific check tools in the sibling list.

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