screen_global_sanctions_address

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds 'Cost: 10 credits' and enumerates dataset choices, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or clarify what a positive match means. For a simple screening tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear one-sentence purpose, an Args block for parameters, and a single line for cost. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Purpose, parameters, and cost are all covered, and the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values. However, the description lacks explicit cross-references to alternative sanctions screeners, which would make it more fully self-contained.

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 input schema has zero descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters: 'address' with a concrete example and 'dataset' with all allowed values plus default. This is excellent parameter-level guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Check whether') and a clear resource ('blockchain address appears on international sanctions lists'), and it explicitly mentions 'multiple countries and organizations', which distinguishes it from the OFAC-only sibling tool. This makes the tool's core function immediately apparent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like screen_ofac_address or search_global_sanctions. The dataset argument lists options, but there is no explicit statement about when a user should choose this tool over others.

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