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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds that the tool references EU, OFAC, and UN lists and cross-references FeedOracle AMLOracle, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, returns a decision, performs external calls beyond the reference, or any 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?

Two concise sentences; the first is front-loaded with the primary action and object. The second adds a useful external-system reference without wasting space.

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?

In the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete: it does not describe the result format, success/failure semantics, or whether all parameters are optional, despite the tool's compliance-oriented purpose.

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?

Only 33% of parameters have schema descriptions (country). The description provides the semantic context 'originator/beneficiary data' but does not map bic/name/country to their screening roles or explain how they should be formatted, so it fails to compensate for low schema 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?

Description states a specific action ('Screen') and resource ('originator/beneficiary data from ISO 20022 messages') against EU/OFAC/UN sanctions lists. It clearly communicates the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like travel_rule_check or mica_cross_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 context is clear: use for sanctions screening of ISO 20022 originator/beneficiary data. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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