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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a paid premium call at $0.25 USDC, returns JSON, fuses sanctions and domain-due-diligence signals into a risk verdict with flags, and names the underlying data areas (registration age, email posture, hosting-IP reputation). No contradictions with annotations.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence that covers purpose, inputs, output, and price without filler. Every clause adds value, and the 'bundle' concept is placed at the beginning so an agent immediately understands the tool's role.

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?

With no output schema and only two optional-looking parameters, the description does enough by stating the input rule (name and/or domain), output format (JSON risk verdict with flags), and cost. It could be slightly more explicit that at least one of name or domain must be provided, but an agent can still select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'Name and/or domain' and adds a minor clarification that either may be used, but it does not add new constraints, formats, or behavior beyond what the schema already documents.

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 identifies the tool as a combined KYB/business vet call, names the specific components (OFAC/Consolidated sanctions screen and domain due-diligence), and states the output: an overall risk verdict with flags. The 'bundle' framing and mention of both sanctions and domain checks differentiate it from single-purpose siblings like legal_sanctions_screen or domain_due_diligence.

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 explicitly states when to use it: vet a business counterparty before onboarding, and 'one premium call' signals it is meant as a bundled alternative to separate lookups. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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