screen_entity_free

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: free access, the 11 lists covered, possible return values, the meaning of INCOMPLETE_SCREEN, the evidentiary nature of NO_MATCH, and rate limiting. It also mentions per-list record counts and freshness, giving the agent a realistic expectation of output.

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?

The description is dense but organized, leading with the free/no-key value proposition and then covering scope, return types, limitations, and alternatives. It is longer than average, but every sentence adds decision-relevant information; a small amount of redundancy ('FREE, no payment and no key') prevents a perfect score.

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 simple one-parameter screening tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool checks, what statuses are returned, what NO_MATCH proves, the rate limit, and how to get a paid, fully-featured alternative. The agent can confidently invoke it and interpret results.

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?

The input schema only provides a required string parameter named 'name' with no description. The tool description compensates by defining the parameter ('person or organisation name to screen') and providing an example ('Wagner Group'), making the usage unambiguous.

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 tool screens a person or organisation against 11 US and international sanctions and debarment lists, naming specific authorities. It differentiates from sibling tools by positioning itself as the free version of screen_entity and by addressing use cases (e.g., vendor bars, Medicare exclusions) that pure crypto AML screeners cannot answer.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool ('Use this to answer...') and provides a direct alternative ('call screen_entity for the same screen with no cap...'). It also warns about rate limits, which is critical for tool selection.

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