screen_sanctions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the list is downloaded live per call, that freshness means delisted entities return clear, that matching uses IDF-weighted contiguous-phrase containment rather than naive substring, and it enumerates the per-name return fields. It omits latency implications of a per-call download, error/failure behavior, and any auth or rate-limit considerations.

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, each front-loaded with the core fact (what it screens against, then what it returns, then how matching works). The parentheticals are dense but carry substantive information rather than filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates the returned fields, the verdict vocabulary, and the matching approach. An agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the batch semantics of 'names' and mentions a confidence score in the results, but does not clarify how minConfidence affects the reported verdicts beyond the schema's default note.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (screen names against the live OFAC SDN list) and explicitly scopes it as 'no state lookup', which distinguishes it from the sibling verify_business. An agent can identify this as a sanctions-screening tool without opening the schema.

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 'no state lookup' clause implicitly contrasts with a state-registry path, giving clear context for when to pick this tool, and 'one or more names' indicates batch use. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling or state a when-not condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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