sanctions_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and target, omitting whether the operation is read-only, how matches are handled, what data source or freshness applies, and what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a screening tool where match logic and result interpretation matter.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately telegraphic but arguably too terse for the amount of missing information, though conciseness itself is well-executed.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage for two parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the optional birth_year parameter, return format, or behavioral expectations, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly in edge cases.

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 0%, with two parameters (name required, birth_year optional). The description only implies the 'name' parameter through the phrase 'Screen a name' and says nothing about birth_year or how it affects matching. The schema provides no descriptions either, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Screen'), resource ('a name'), and target ('EU sanctions list'). The sibling tools (cve_brief, evidence_verify, chronolocate_sun, ioc_search) are unrelated, so no sibling differentiation is needed. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The description implies a straightforward screening use case but never states when to include the optional birth_year or how to interpret results. It provides no when-not-to-use information.

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