sanctions_screen

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by naming the specific list sources screened and by including the 'a name match is not a determination' disclaimer, which shapes how an agent should interpret a hit. It omits any mention of match-score thresholds or how openWorld access affects latency/results.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is screened and what is returned; the caveat comes last where it belongs. The field enumeration in sentence one is dense but each item earns its place given there is no output schema.

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, the description usefully compensates by listing the returned fields (list, entry id, programmes, countries, listing date, match score). The main remaining gap is that 'match score' is not explained (scale or threshold), which an agent would need to interpret results correctly.

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%, and the schema already explains the non-obvious behavior of country ('orders matches, never excludes one'). The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 gives a specific verb (screen) and resource (sanctions lists: OFAC SDN, EU, UN) and even enumerates the returned fields, so the purpose is unambiguous. However, it never differentiates itself from the closely named siblings sanctions_preview and wallet_sanctions_preview, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the text 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 statement of when to use this tool versus sanctions_preview, wallet_sanctions_preview, or check_entity. The only guidance-like sentence, 'A name match is not a determination,' is an interpretive caveat about results, not usage direction, leaving the agent to infer selection context from the name alone.

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