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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely useful non-structured behavior: the $0.10 price, USDC-on-Base/x402 payment model, and the fact that it returns payment requirements unless payment_signature is supplied. It does not describe failure modes or the shape of screening results, but the payment gating disclosure is valuable.

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?

Front-loads purpose and use case, then price, payment behavior, and a sample link, all in a few dense sentences. The bracketed category tag is slightly noisy but the content is otherwise tight and well-ordered.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, yet it only describes the payment handshake and points to a sample rather than indicating what a screening result contains (hit flags, matched lists, confidence). Adequate for invoking the tool, but incomplete on the result side.

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 all seven parameters (name, type, dob, lei, country, registration_number, payment_signature) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (a new counterparty, person or company) and scopes it to a single call, which implicitly distinguishes it from the individual screen_sanctions/screen_pep siblings. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring the aggregation angle.

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 clear context: use before onboarding, contracting or paying, and as a first-pass screen before human review. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., batch_sanctions_screen for many parties, or the single-purpose screeners), so when-not-to-use is only implied by 'first-pass'.

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