Screen a name against the OFAC SDN list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (potential matches with 0-100 scores where 100 is identical, plus an explanation per match) and the flagging behavior when year of birth or country conflict.

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, zero preamble: the primary action and return format come first, followed by one sentence of actionable input advice. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

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 still conveys what comes back (scored matches plus explanations) and how to improve result quality via year of birth and country. Fully sufficient for a read-only, single-parameter-required screening call, though match/flag structure is described only in prose.

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 every parameter is already documented, including that minScore defaults to 85 and yearOfBirth/country trigger flagging. The description restates the yearOfBirth/country advice and adds the rationale ('so conflicts can be flagged'), which is a marginal increment over the schema rather than new information.

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 (screens), a specific resource (one person/company/vessel/aircraft name) and a specific reference list (U.S. Treasury OFAC SDN). The word 'one' implicitly separates it from the batch sibling screen_names, but no sibling is named explicitly and compare_names/get_sanctions_entry are never referenced.

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?

Usage guidance is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the single-name screening entry point against OFAC SDN. There is no explicit when-to-use vs compare_names or get_sanctions_entry, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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