nonprofit.screen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output (registry record + sanctions block) but does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. Critical behavioral details like error handling or data freshness are absent.

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 two sentences: the first states the core function, the second lists output components. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's complexity (combining registry lookup and sanctions screening) and lack of output schema, the description provides a reasonable high-level overview but omits details on error handling, rate limits, authority requirements, or how to interpret the confidence scores. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete.

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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema; it only reinforces the overall purpose. The limit parameter lacks a description in both the schema and the description, so the agent must infer its meaning.

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 states the tool 'Look up US 501(c) nonprofits and screen each against the OFAC sanctions list in one call', specifying both the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like nonprofit.search and law.sanctions-check by combining registry and sanctions screening, and includes the use case 'Grant-making due diligence and donation compliance'.

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 grant-making due diligence and donation compliance, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nonprofit.search (for registry only) or law.sanctions-check (for sanctions only). No exclusion criteria or specific prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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