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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds real context beyond them: no name logging, deterministic offline matching against a bundled snapshot, hit cap of 20 sorted by score, data_version snapshot ids, and warnings for stale snapshots. This is exactly the extra behavioral disclosure the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the middle section is dense but useful. The extensive return-field enumeration (list, listed_name, aliases_matched, score, programs, etc.) is largely redundant given a declared output schema, costing some efficiency.

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?

For a 7-parameter screening tool with full schema coverage, annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly, including the privacy/offline caveat and stale-snapshot warnings. Only the lack of explicit sibling routing keeps it short of a 5.

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 schema already documents dob, lists, id_number, min_score, entity_type and nationality, including the scoring effects (exact = 100, type disagreement = -20). The description mostly restates these and adds only a combined example; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Screen a person, company, vessel or aircraft name') and enumerates the exact lists covered (OFAC SDN + Consolidated, UN, EU, UK, UAE LTL), which cleanly separates it from the batch sibling. An agent can identify the operation and scope without opening the schema.

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 example invocation and the min_score tuning note ('80 widens the net for onboarding, 92 for alert review') give concrete context for correct use. However, it never explicitly routes away from siblings such as screen_batch or explain_match, leaving the single-vs-batch choice to inference.

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