OFAC sanctions check

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the data source (0xB10C), update cadence (nightly), coverage limits (digital-currency addresses only, not the full SDN list), and a reliability caveat ('screening aid only'). That is meaningful context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by sourcing and a caveat. No filler.

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?

Covers source, freshness, scope, and caveat, but with no output schema the description should indicate what a result looks like (match/no-match, per-address flags). That omission leaves the agent guessing about the response shape.

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 there is one parameter, so the description carries some burden. It clarifies that addresses may be from 'any chain', which the untyped string array does not convey, but it says nothing about the 1-200 item bound or batch semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (addresses against the OFAC SDN digital-currency address list), with explicit scope '(any chain)'. No sibling tool overlaps with sanctions screening, so the agent can immediately place it.

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?

'Screening aid only' implies a caveat about relying on results, and the description hints at use for compliance screening, but it names no alternative tools or explicit when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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