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

Discloses return of an attested verdict with per-list counts, mentions price ($0.15/call), and explains coverage limitations for NPI-only screens. No annotations, so description carries full burden and does so thoroughly.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. First sentence front-loads the core action. Each sentence adds value: what it screens, how results look, guidance on inputs, intended users, and cost.

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 and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, usage context, and behavior. References output fields (lists_checked, lists_not_applicable) but doesn't describe full output structure, which is acceptable 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining that name and NPI are used together or separately, and that NPI-only covers 4 of 6 lists while name is needed for full coverage. Lacks explicit data types or constraints, but sufficiently clarifies usage.

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 provider against multiple federal and state exclusion lists, listing specific databases (OIG LEIE, GSA SAM, etc.) and returns a clear/flagged verdict. It distinguishes from sibling tool sanctions_leie_search, which covers only one list.

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 says 'For hiring, credentialing, and vendor-onboarding agents.' Also explains when NPI-only is insufficient (OFAC SDN and FDA debarment need a name) and directs to output fields for details.

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