screen_name

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses behavior: returns ranked possible matches with designation details, indicative only, must be verified, covers only UK list, string-based, data date, and not legal advice.

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?

Front-loaded with the critical usage instruction, then provides essential details, warnings, and disclaimers. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity of sanctions screening and lack of output schema, the description fully explains the output (ranked matches, details), limitations (indicative, not clearance), and dataset scope. No gaps.

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 100% and schema descriptions are present. The tool description adds context by linking 'name' to person/company/vessel and 'limit' to number of matches, reinforcing their purpose in the screening workflow.

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 explicitly states the tool screens a name against the UK Sanctions List, using the verb 'screen' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_sanctions_entry' by focusing on proactive screening.

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?

Clear when-to-use ('before onboarding, paying, or transacting') and when-not-to-use: warnings that a match is not confirmation, no match is not clearance, and it covers only the UK FCDO list. Explicitly directs to human verification.

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