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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the returned fields (risk_score, risk_level, per-vertical summary) and the highest-risk-first sort order, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or how unresolvable names are handled.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the cap and the return shape, the second gives the use case. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 discloses the return structure and ordering, and the single input parameter is fully covered by the schema. Minor gaps remain around failure modes for unmatched entities and how results relate to the per-entity single-lookup siblings.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter, so the schema fully documents the input. The description's 'up to 50 entities' merely restates the maxItems constraint already in the schema, adding no new semantics.

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 (screen) and resource (entities) with the batch scope made explicit ('up to 50 entities in one call'). It never differentiates itself from the very close sibling screen_all, leaving the agent to infer which is which.

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?

Provides a concrete usage context ('vet a whole vendor / counterparty / portfolio list at once'), which tells the agent this is for bulk list screening rather than single lookups. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when-not to use it (e.g., vs. screen_all or sanctions_check).

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