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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the output (verdict, hit counts, listings), the one-call nature, pricing, and the important caveat that matches require adjudication. This adds behavioral context beyond the input 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 well-structured, starting with a question, listing lists, then output details, caveat, and price. Every sentence adds value, though slightly lengthy. It's efficient and front-loaded.

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 thoroughly explains return values (verdict, per-list counts, listings with details) and the adjudication note. It covers input and output adequately, distinguishing from siblings by specifying the sanctions focus.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little new on the 'name' parameter beyond what the schema says, and for 'list' it reiterates 'optional filter.' It does not introduce additional parameter semantics not already in 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 clearly states the tool screens a company against U.S. sanctions and export-control lists, listing specific lists like OFAC SDN, BIS Entity, etc. The verb 'screen' and resource 'sanctions lists' are explicit, distinguishing it from other screening tools among siblings.

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 indicates use for checking sanctions/export-control status and notes that a match is a 'screening hit to adjudicate, not a determination.' It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but implies this tool is for the Consolidated Screening List, which differentiates it from sibling screening tools.

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