Check name against PEP list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds significant behavior: it records the screened name and result in the API log, returns specific fields (hit, hitCount, hits[] with percent score), and includes a compliance directive about reporting all hits without softening. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Every sentence delivers value: it states the core function, the side effect of logging, the return structure, and critical compliance rules. The compliance section is essential for correct use and is written without fluff. Well-structured and appropriately sized.

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?

For a compliance-sensitive tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, side effects, return data, and reporting requirements. It even provides a link for professional assessments. The output schema is present, but the description also explains the key fields, making it self-sufficient for an agent.

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 covers both parameters (name and accuracy) with complete descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so no deduction is needed.

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 performs 'One-time screening of a single person name against the PEP list', with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool check_and_add_to_monitoring by emphasizing that no monitoring entry is created.

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 provides clear context: it is for one-time screening and explicitly notes that no monitoring entry is created, which signals when to use it versus monitoring tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls just short of a 5.

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