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

Without annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It covers data freshness (snapshot refreshed daily), query parameter format, output details (scored matches, entity type, programs, verdict), and pricing, which goes well beyond typical descriptions.

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 information-dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary function and data source; the second covers parameters, output, and pricing—all essential 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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description alone makes the tool self-contained: it explains inputs, outputs, constraints (threshold range), and cost, so an AI agent can reliably select and invoke it.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage). The description adds the accepted threshold range (0.6-1.0), the list codes (eu, ofac, un, uk, fr), and the query format, fully compensating for the schema's minimal titles.

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 specifies the exact action ('Screen a name') and resource ('five official sanctions lists'), listing the specific lists and distinguishing it from sibling verification tools like check_eori or verify_company_fr.

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 narrow focus on sanctions screening makes the intended usage clear, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or include exclusions. It stops short of providing direct alternative guidance.

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