sanctions_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior, but it does not mention side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or whether results are cached. The tool likely performs external API calls, but this is not stated.

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 a single, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key information (what lists are screened) and uses concise language.

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 2 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the screening scope but does not mention return format, false positive handling, or update frequency of lists. For a compliance tool, more detail on reliability would be beneficial.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the specific sanctions lists used, which helps agents understand the screening scope beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 blockchain addresses against specific sanctions lists (OFAC, FATF, JFSA, ChainAnalyzer ScamDB), providing a specific verb (screen) and resource (address against sanctions lists). It distinguishes from siblings like batch_screening (batch) and check_address_risk (general risk) by specifying the precise lists used.

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?

The description implies use for sanctions compliance screening but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_screening for multiple addresses or check_address_risk for broader risk. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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