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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the auth requirement ('Requires a Bearer key') and that this fans out to three external registries, but says nothing about latency, rate limits, or partial-failure behavior when one of the three sources is unavailable.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the substance (what it aggregates) is front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. Nothing is repeated from the schema or 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 should convey the shape of the composite result, but it does not indicate whether it returns raw sanctions hits, an LEI, EDGAR filings, or a merged verdict. For a three-source aggregation tool this leaves a meaningful gap, though what to pass in is fully covered.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already states 'Company name to screen.' The description adds no syntax, formatting, or disambiguation guidance (e.g., legal-entity vs. trade name), making the baseline 3 correct.

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 names a concrete verb-and-resource ('counterparty due-diligence') and enumerates the three data sources it aggregates (OFAC SDN, GLEIF LEI, SEC EDGAR), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from the sibling ofac_sanctions_search, which covers one of the same sources.

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 word 'Composite' and 'in one call' imply this is the broad option to reach for instead of chaining narrower tools, which is weak guidance toward ofac_sanctions_search. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative, so selection logic is left to inference.

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