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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is paid, targets Japan MOF designations, and that the output is factual screening data, not legal advice. This goes beyond a minimal description, though it does not detail return formats or error handling, which are typical for a simple screening 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that includes the cost, purpose, scope, and a disclaimer. Every word adds value, and it is immediately clear what the tool does.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with a single parameter, and the description covers the essential context: the screening target, jurisdiction, cost, and a legal disclaimer. It does not describe the return value, but without an output schema, the phrase 'screen' implies a yes/no result, which is adequate for this context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly clarifies that the 'address' parameter is a 'crypto address', adding meaning beyond the generic alphanumeric pattern in the schema. However, it does not specify which blockchain or address format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a specific verb ('screen') and resource ('a crypto address against Japan MOF asset-freeze sanctions designations'). This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like catalog, dex_spread_anomalies, and reg_events, which cover different domains.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you need to check a crypto address against Japan's sanctions list. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so no further guidance is necessary. The cost note ('Paid ($0.002/call)') adds an implicit usage consideration.

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