sugra_entity_screen

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which already convey safety and non-destructiveness. The description adds context about the compact output to protect context budget, the dropped heavy fields, and Sugra's role as a technology provider, all beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement first, followed by output details and parameter list. Every sentence provides value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's complexity, the description covers purpose, limitations, output structure, and parameters adequately. An output schema exists, so detailed return value documentation is not required. Minor omission: the 'list' field in matches could use more context, but overall sufficient.

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 no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section explains the purpose and expected format for each parameter (name, country, dob, nationality). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb 'screen' and the resource 'Sugra sanctions corpus', and distinguishes the tool from returning a compliance determination. It differentiates from the sibling tool 'sugra_entity_lookup' by focusing on screening vs. lookup.

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 explicitly warns that the result is a screening signal, not a compliance determination, and explains that a 'clear' result is not proof of absence. It advises using the Sugra API directly for full details, providing clear usage boundaries. However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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