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 explains the input (optional name and wallet), output (verdict categories and receipt), and that it is fail-closed. It mentions a signed proof on the paid tier. While it doesn't explicitly state it is read-only, the context implies no destructive side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence defines purpose, second explains output, third gives usage. No unnecessary words, though could be slightly more structured.

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 no output schema, the description effectively explains return values (verdict categories). It covers input parameters, usage context, and output format, making it fully complete for a screening tool.

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 100% and the description adds context by linking 'name' to sanctions screening and 'wallet' to on-chain risk signals. This adds meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions, but the baseline is 3 due to high coverage.

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 clearly states the tool screens a counterparty agent before payment, returns a fail-closed verdict (CLEAR, REVIEW, BLOCK) from OFAC sanctions and on-chain signals, and provides a proof-of-diligence receipt. It distinguishes itself as a pre-payment compliance check.

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 explicitly says 'Call this before any agent-to-agent payment', giving clear usage context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is direct and actionable.

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