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

Exceeds the annotations by disclosing 'Paid $0.01 USDC', 'Fail closed' failure handling, 'Not legal advice' limitation, and the payTo address. The description proactively discloses important behavioral and commercial traits that annotations don't cover, with no contradictions.

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 compact sentences deliver cost, purpose, address formats, error behavior, and a legal disclaimer without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place, effectively front-loading the most critical information (the fee).

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 tool with no output schema, the description fails to specify the return value or response format, which is a major gap for an agent to use the result. While 'Fail closed' provides some clue about error behavior, a complete tool contract would state what the success response looks like (e.g., boolean or structured 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?

The schema already describes the single parameter with 100% coverage, including the address format. The tool description echoes this information but adds no premium semantic content beyond that, conforming to the baseline-3 expectation.

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 clearly identifies a sanctions screening tool for crypto addresses on OFSD SDN, mentioning specific address formats ('EVM 0x or Solana/base58'). It stands out from sibling tools by explaining the exact service and payment, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear usage context by stating the cost ($0.01 USDC), the network (Base), and the supported address types. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name any alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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