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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side-effect behavior. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns (matching records with source type, jurisdiction, and sanction details) and provides a usage example. It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them.

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?

The description is two sentences plus an example, with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately provides a concrete usage example. Every element serves a purpose—nothing is redundant or verbose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It states the purpose, the return fields, and gives an example. An agent has all necessary information to call this tool correctly, including parameter names and expected inputs.

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 all three parameters (fuzzy, names, _apiKey) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds an example call but does not provide any semantic meaning beyond what the schema already explains. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the explanatory load.

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 and resource: 'Screen a company against sanctions and watchlists (AML/KYC)'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like dilisense_check_individual and dilisense_check_name by focusing on companies, and mentions the return of matching records with source type, jurisdiction, and sanction details. This is unambiguous and differentiates the tool's scope.

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?

The description makes it clear that the tool is for screening companies, which implies the intended use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., individual/name checks). The sibling tool names are self-explanatory, so the context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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