ScreenSeal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that results are fuzzy matches with confidence scores, that provenance includes list versions, source URLs and SHA-256 digests, and that responses are sealed with an EIP-712 attestation. It also discloses cost (free during launch, $0.02 USDC/call on the paid channel) and a legal disclaimer. It does not state rate limits or idempotency behavior for the free tool.

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?

Front-loads the core action and datasets in the first sentence, then layers return contents, disclaimer, and the paid alternative. Although slightly inflated by a four-item legal disclaimer list ('legal determination, sanctions certification, compliance clearance, or legal advice') and the marketing-flavored paid-endpoint pitch, each section still serves a distinct decision for the agent.

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 and no annotations, yet the description explains what the response contains (fuzzy matches, confidence scores, per-list provenance, attestation) and sets the safety/legal boundary. With only three well-documented parameters, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents name, dob, and nationality with formats and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., whether nationality biases matching or dob is used for disambiguation), so the baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb (screen) and resource (person or organization name) and names the exact datasets consulted (OFAC SDN, OFAC Consolidated Non-SDN, EU financial sanctions). An agent knows precisely what operation will be performed without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as an informational screening signal and rules out legal/compliance uses, and it names a concrete alternative channel ('for production volume, the same screening core is available as a paid x402 API') with pricing and endpoint. It lacks guidance on when screening is inappropriate (e.g., batch vs single) or rate limits on the free tier, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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