eu_sanctions_screen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that fuzzy hits are labeled 'possible match' rather than determinations, and that every response carries a publication date, source attribution, and a not-legal-advice disclaimer. It omits read-only status confirmation, rate limits, and the 200-query batch ceiling, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose first, match semantics second, response caveats third. Every sentence adds information an agent needs and there is no padding.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers result interpretation and disclaimers well but leaves the four optional filters unexplained and never describes the shape of a match entry in the response. Adequate but with real gaps for a compliance-screening call.

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 67%, so the schema already documents queries, country, programmes, subjectType, and fuzzyThreshold. The description restates the query input types without adding new meaning and says nothing about the optional filters or how fuzzyThreshold relates to the 'possible match' labeling.

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 names a specific verb (screen) and resource (EU Consolidated Financial Sanctions List, DG FISMA/FSF), plus the inputs it accepts (names, EU reference numbers, identification numbers). It never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling eu_sanctions_lookup, so an agent must infer the split from the tool name alone.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling eu_sanctions_lookup despite near-identical subject matter. The screening scope is implied by the verb, but nothing steers the agent between the two sanctions tools.

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