screen_pep

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

Discloses that output is not a live result but a 'defined-but-not-live status' with INTEGRATION_POINT value. Warns against misinterpreting it as clean. No annotations, so description carries burden.

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?

Well-structured with cautionary note. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Efficient for explaining a nuanced behavior.

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?

Covers purpose, return value, and caveat. No output schema, so description compensates by explaining the result semantics. Could mention authentication or rate limits but sufficient for a simple tool.

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% for the single 'names' parameter. Description adds context about processing these names but no new format or constraints beyond schema.

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?

Clear verb 'Screen' and specific resource 'PEP status'. Distinguishes from sibling 'screen_sanctions' by focusing on PEP.

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?

Explicitly states when not to treat result as final (integration point), implying manual due diligence. Provides context but no direct 'when not to use' compared to alternatives.

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