screen_sanctions

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the live screening behavior and the significance of matches. It does not cover rate limits or error handling but adequately sets expectations for a screening tool.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage instruction and rule. No fluff, every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose and usage but does not describe the return value or error states, which would help an agent interpret results fully.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, just reiterating 'full names' and providing context for the disqualifying rule.

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 'screen' and the resource 'live OFAC SDN sanctions list'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like screen_pep by specifying the exact list and usage for applicants, beneficial owners, and company names.

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 gives explicit instructions to call for every applicant, beneficial owner, and company name, and mandates that potential matches be treated as disqualifying pending human review. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives but is very directive.

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