US export-control / sanctions screening

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

Annotations cover the read-only/open-world safety profile, and the description adds real context beyond them: what the call returns (license requirement/policy and Federal Register citation) and a material legal caveat that results are advisory only. It stops short of disclosing matching behavior (fuzzy vs exact) or result-count handling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then filters, then return value, then caveat — a sensible ordering. The parenthetical list enumeration is long but carries genuine disambiguation value, so it earns its place; only slight compression would help.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly assumes responsibility for the return value ('license requirement/policy and Federal Register citation'). Combined with the source list, filter coverage, and legal caveat, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though match semantics remain unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the 'list' and 'country' filters and effectively decodes the cryptic enum values by spelling out the underlying lists (Entity, MEU, Denied Persons, Unverified, Treasury/State), but the required 'name' parameter and the 'limit' cap are never explained, leaving part of the burden unmet.

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 ('Screen') and resource ('US government's Consolidated Screening List') and enumerates the constituent lists (BIS Entity List, MEU, Denied Persons, Unverified List, Treasury/State). An agent immediately knows this is a sanctions/export-control name check, which is wholly distinct from the chip-focused siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing ('Screen a company or person name') and the 'screening aid only, not legal advice' caveat signals its role, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus any alternative, nor of prerequisites such as minimum name length. Adequate but not directive.

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