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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the cost (0.015 USDC), the evidence nature (observed official sources, literal screening), and a limitation (not legal clearance). However, it omits return format, permissions, whether it is read-only, and what evidence is produced, leaving moderate gaps.

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, compact sentence with semicolon-separated clauses that are front-loaded with the core purpose, cost, and limitation. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 a nested input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It lacks any explanation of return values, error behavior, or how the subject and source_urls parameters are structured, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 0% with three parameters, including a nested subject object and a source_urls array. The description provides no additional meaning for any parameter—no guidance on subject fields, jurisdiction usage, or source_urls purpose—so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 and resource: 'literal subject screening against observed official US/EU sanctions sources.' It is clear what the tool does and distinguishes itself from the broader compliance siblings by emphasizing evidence-based, literal screening. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to further sharpen differentiation.

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 phrase 'Not legal clearance or wallet attribution' sets a boundary by stating what the tool is not, which implies it should be used for evidence-based screening rather than legal opinions or wallet attribution. But it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like rwa_compliance or verify, so usage is only implied.

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