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

Even though annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: full-name match only, conservative-by-design behavior, inclusion of a.k.a. aliases, and its status as a screening aid rather than a compliance determination. It also discloses pricing, authentication options, and the lack of wallet/API key requirements.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, scope boundary, expected output, behavioral caveat, required input, pricing, and credential requirements. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the supporting details are compactly 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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what input is required, what outcomes to expect, how the matching behaves, and operational constraints like pricing and authentication. Nothing essential is missing.

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 describes 'name' as 'Person or company name' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical semantics by clarifying that this is a name-based (not wallet-based) lookup, that a person or company is acceptable input, and that the screening checks against the SDN list including aliases. This exceeds baseline but does not add format-level constraints.

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?

States a specific verb ('Screen'), a concrete resource ('person or company against the OFAC SDN list'), and expected outputs ('GO / HOLD / STOP'). It also draws a clear boundary from wallet-focused sibling tools with 'Sanctions screening for NAMES, not wallets,' which distinguishes it from related tools.

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 clearly indicates the use case: screening names, not wallets, and states the required input is a name. It implies wallet screening is out of scope, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like sanctions or sanctions_batch as the right choice for wallet screening. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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