Screen a name against OFAC sanctions lists

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: word-order insensitivity due to name format, riskLevel values and 'clear' scoping, error behavior when lists fail to load (never returns a false clear), and the $0.03 USDC cost with payment mechanism. These go beyond simple capability claims and provide essential operational details.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, scope, output, match behavior, limitations, error semantics, and cost in a compact paragraph. The information is front-loaded and structured logically.

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?

For a paid external screening tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what lists are used, what the response contains (programs, remarks, score), riskLevel interpretations, failure semantics, and pricing. Users can accurately predict tool behavior without further documentation.

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 each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds the 'SURNAME, Given' detail to clarify why word order doesn't matter, which enhances the 'name' parameter, but most parameter semantics come from the schema itself.

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 it performs OFAC sanctions screening, specifically checking a person or company against the US Treasury SDN and Consolidated lists. It uses a specific verb ('Checks') and identifies the resource and scope, making it distinct from the unrelated sibling tools.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (screening persons/companies) and explicitly scopes the 'clear' result to the US lists, noting EU, UK, and UN are not screened. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling handles sanctions screening, so exclusion guidance is sufficient.

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