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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses real matching across all three lists, transliteration of non-Latin names, a 400 error for unscreenable names with no false clear, and x402 payment mechanics. It stops short of rate limits or response structure, but the core behavior is well conveyed.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and packs useful operational details into a compact paragraph. It is dense but not bloated, though the broad screening menu could be trimmed for sharper focus.

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?

The description covers purpose, list sources, error behavior, payment, and endpoint, which is substantial given no output schema or annotations. However, it omits return-value structure and never resolves why an address-named tool takes pipe-separated names rather than addresses, leaving a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already explains names, days, and threshold. The description adds only tangential parameter meaning around transliteration and unscreenable names; it does not enrich the semantics of days or threshold beyond the 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 clearly identifies sanctions screening against OFAC, OFSI, and EU lists, but it does not distinguish this tool from its own siblings check_sanctions__screen, check_sanctions__batch, and check_sanctions__watchlist. By saying it can screen a name, wallet address, batch, or watchlist, it blurs rather than sharpens the specific role of check_sanctions__address.

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 lists what can be screened but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool rather than the sibling batch, screen, or watchlist tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing conditions to help an agent choose correctly.

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