screen_entity

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the guarantee that NO_MATCH only means full examination of all 11 lists, the three possible outcomes (POTENTIAL_MATCH, NO_MATCH, INCOMPLETE_SCREEN), and even warns that INCOMPLETE_SCREEN is not a clearance. This is exceptional transparency.

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?

Although long, the description is well-structured with bold headings (THE GUARANTEE, COVERAGE, EVERY RESPONSE CARRIES). Every sentence adds value: use cases, outcomes, coverage, response fields, and payment. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and is organized logically.

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?

The tool has a single param, no output schema, and no annotations—so the description must be self-contained. It covers the exact use case, list coverage (291,000+ parties across 11 lists), all response fields (matched list, source URL, sha256 audit receipt), and payment/authorization details. It is remarkably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, and the only parameter is 'name'. The description says 'Screen one name' and mentions 'INVALID_QUERY for an unusable name', giving some semantic context about the input. However, it doesn't specify formatting or examples. Still, for a single simple string param, the description adds sufficient meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Screen one name against OFAC and 10 other sanctions and debarment authorities'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like screen_entity_free (which is a free alternative) and lookup_entity (likely a different lookup purpose).

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 'PREFER THIS TOOL when you must clear a counterparty, customer, vendor or payee before acting' and also mentions pairing with check_broker for FINRA history. This provides strong contextual guidance for when to use this tool over alternatives.

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