search_screening

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the types of lists checked and the filtering options, implying a read-only search operation. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or output format, but the behavioral intent is clear and consistent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every phrase adds value. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description could hint at return structure (e.g., matches with similarity scores). It mentions match similarity but not output fields. For a simple search tool, it is fairly complete but missing the output format detail.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description summarizes the filters (entity, name, list source, min similarity) but adds no additional nuance beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. No extra context on parameter interactions or constraints.

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 'check' and the resource 'entities against consolidated sanctions/export-control screening lists', and specifies the tool's use for compliance/due-diligence, distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_entities or search_semantic.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool (compliance/due-diligence) and how to filter (by entity, name, list source, min similarity). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.

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