law.sanctions-check

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: fuzzy matching, ranked results with similarity scores, sanctions program metadata, and daily list refresh. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist) and adds value beyond the schema by explaining the output nature and data freshness.

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?

Three sentences: first states action and target, second describes output, third notes data freshness. No redundant information, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (ranked matches with scores and metadata). Parameter details are sufficient from schema. Could mention result limits or pagination, but current completeness is appropriate for a screening tool.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the purpose. Baseline score of 3 applies as schema covers most parameters adequately.

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 fuzzy matching of names against the OFAC SDN list, with specific entity types (person, company, vessel, aircraft). The verb 'Fuzzy-match' and resource 'US Treasury OFAC SDN list' are explicit, and the tool is well-distinguished from sibling law tools like trademark or case search.

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 implies the tool is for sanctions screening but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as other law tools or business entity screening tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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