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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that each match carries a score, matched words, spelling rules and a birth-date check, and that the response names the exact list versions used. It also notes the purpose is logged per call. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or rate limits.

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 tightly packed sentences plus a rationale clause, front-loaded with the action and scope before the matching/version details. Every clause adds information an agent cannot get from the schema.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the match payload and list-version reporting. It is nearly complete for a screening call, though it omits what a no-match result looks like and whether the operation has side effects or access constraints.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining why 'purpose' is mandatory (beneficial owners are among those screened) and that it is logged per call. The 'code' parameter gets no extra detail, but its schema pattern already constrains it.

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 states a specific verb (screens) and resource (a Lithuanian legal entity plus every person in its registry data) and enumerates the exact sanction lists checked (EU, UN, OFAC, UK). This is specific enough to separate it from siblings like get_beneficial_owners or get_due_diligence_report, which surface data rather than adjudicate it against sanctions lists.

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?

Usage is implied through the AML/KYC framing and the required purpose enum, so an agent can infer this is the compliance-screening step. However, it never names an alternative or states when-not to use it versus get_due_diligence_report or get_beneficial_owners, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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