sugra_entity_screen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns a signal, not a compliance determination; it warns that a 'clear' result is not proof of absence and a 'hit' is a candidate match; and it describes the compact output structure (status, matches, disclaimer). This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the semantic limitations and output shape, though it could mention error handling or edge cases for a 5.

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 and front-loaded: it opens with the purpose, then explains the output and its rationale, then lists parameters. It is reasonably concise for the complexity of the tool, with no redundant fluff. Each paragraph earns its place, and the important caveats are prominently placed.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with disclaimers and a specific output format. The description covers the output schema (including the structure and status values), explains the non-comprehensive nature, and mentions the compactness for context budget. It lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, or exact match scoring, but the presence of an output schema and the thorough description make it largely complete for an agent to use 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?

The schema covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description's Args section largely repeats the schema's descriptions (e.g., country is ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, dob is YYYY-MM-DD). It adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as implying these are filters to narrow the match, but that is already implicit. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description does not sufficiently enhance parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb ('screen') and resource ('a person or organization name against the Sugra sanctions corpus'). It distinguishes this from a compliance determination and positions it as a screening signal, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like sugra_entity_lookup which likely focuses on lookup rather than screening.

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 on when this tool is appropriate: it returns a compact screening signal to protect the agent context budget, and explicitly says to use the Sugra API directly when the full screening envelope is needed. However, it does not name sibling tools or explicitly contrast with them, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive regarding alternative MCP tools.

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