business.entity-screen

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the probabilistic name matching behavior and mentions that the output includes confidence and flagged status. Does not mention authentication, rate limits, or idempotency, but the core behavior (read-only screening) is clear.

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?

Description is concise (two sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. However, it is dense and could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., listing states explicitly), but it is efficient overall.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a good high-level understanding but lacks depth. It mentions output fields (confidence, flagged) but not their types or ranges. Parameter guidance is insufficient. It does describe the core function adequately for selection, but not fully for 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 0%, and the description does not explain individual parameters. For example, it does not clarify when to use 'name' vs 'entityId', what 'threshold' means exactly (likely confidence threshold but not stated), or how 'limit' affects results. The high-level overview does not compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs KYC by looking up businesses in specific US state registries (NY/CO/CT) and screening against OFAC sanctions. It specifies the output (matched entities with sanctions confidence and flagged status) and distinguishes from generic search 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?

Explicitly identifies use cases ('Counterparty due-diligence, AML') and context (US state registries). Does not explicitly list when not to use, but the combined nature of the tool (lookup + screening) implies it is for integrated checks. Siblings include separate lookup and sanctions tools, so guidance is adequate.

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