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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses data coverage (25,000+ entities, weekly refresh), fuzzy matching behavior, return contents (scored matches with lists, references and birth dates), and exact payment mechanics including free daily calls. These are substantive behavioral details an agent needs before invoking a paid external lookup.

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 front-loaded with the usage trigger and moves efficiently through coverage, matching behavior, return values and cost. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 available, the description explains what the tool returns, how matching works, what lists are covered and how payment/free-tier access works. That is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents the name and birth_year parameters. The description explains fuzzy name matching, but it adds little about the person/entity type parameter or how birth_year disambiguates results, leaving some semantic gaps.

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: screening a person or company name against EU, UN, UK and US OFAC sanctions lists. It also clarifies the singular-name scope, implicitly distinguishing it from the batch sibling eu_sanctions_batch.

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?

It gives a clear trigger: use when you must check whether a person or company is under sanctions. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as us_trade_screen, pep_screen or eu_sanctions_batch, nor does it state when not to use the tool.

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