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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds valuable behavior beyond annotations, including the $0.03 pricing, the prepaid x-credit-token header option, the 1-free-call-per-day limit, and the fact that no wallet or API key is required.

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 front-loads the core purpose with the 'OFAC + profile + risk → one verdict' formula, then provides necessary operational details concisely. It is somewhat dense due to pricing and header information, but every sentence adds useful context and the structure is well-organized.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, output categories, required input, cost, auth mechanism, free-tier availability, and confirms no wallet/API key is needed, leaving little for an agent to infer.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single 'address' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats 'Required input: address' and does not add deeper semantic guidance about address formats, chain context, or accepted variations.

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 defines a combined counterparty screening action for a single address, with the explicit components OFAC match, EOA/contract profile, and risk flags. It also states the output is a single recommendation (blocked/review/clear), and the 'combined' framing helps distinguish it from narrower sibling tools like sanctions or counterparty_check.

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 gives clear context: it is for compliance agents needing an all-in-one verdict for a specific address, with the required input explicitly stated. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5, but the 'combined' wording implies differentiation from single-dimension tools.

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