Check name against sanctions lists

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses important behavioral specifics: results are logged in the account's API log, the tool returns hit/hitCount/hits[] with percent scores, and it mandates that the tool result is authoritative and must never be softened or filtered. This adds substantial behavioral context without contradicting 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds necessary operational and compliance details. The compliance paragraph is somewhat lengthy, but it contains essential directives for a sanctions-screening tool and is not redundant with the schema or annotations. Overall, every section contributes value.

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 output schema exists, the description still supplies the return field names (hit, hitCount, hits[]) and explains the recording side effect in the API log. It covers the tool's purpose, limitations, compliance obligations, and expected output, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100% with both parameters clearly documented (name, accuracy with range and default behavior). The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that the name is a single person or organization, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and a precise resource ('single person or organization name against the EU/US/HADDEX sanctions lists via the easycompliance API'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating this is one-time screening and that no monitoring entry is created, which separates it from check_and_add_to_monitoring and check_pep_list.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: 'One-time screening of a single person or organization name' and explains a key exclusion: 'No monitoring entry is created.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools for ongoing monitoring, but the context of sibling tools and the 'one-time' scope provide clear usage boundaries.

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