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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds meaningful behavioral information by stating that it 'Returns scored entity matches with list metadata', which tells the agent what kind of response to expect despite there being no output schema.

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 a compact example, with no filler or repetition of schema details. The main action and result are front-loaded, and the example earns its place by showing the required parameter combination.

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, but the description partially compensates by summarizing the return content as scored matches with list metadata. Combined with full schema coverage and read-only/idempotent annotations, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly; more detail on response structure or pagination would be nice but is not essential for a single-name lookup.

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 the input schema already documents all eight parameters. The inline example demonstrates how name, entity_type, min_score, and _apiKey fit together, adding a small amount of guidance, but the description does not substantially explain parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Screen'), names the resource ('a single name against global sanctions, PEP, and watchlists'), and enumerates concrete source categories. The phrase 'single name' also distinguishes it from the sibling tool sanctions_bulk without requiring the agent to inspect that tool.

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 context is clear: this is for single-name AML compliance screening, with an inline example showing how to call it. However, it never mentions when not to use it or points to alternatives such as sanctions_bulk for multi-name screening, so selection guidance is only implied by the word 'single'.

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