Screen a party against the Consolidated Screening List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the data is bundled with the server, that results are ranked candidates with license requirement and authority, and most importantly that ownership is not screened and the 50% affiliates rule can catch an unlisted entity. These are exactly the behavioral caveats an agent needs before acting on a 'no match' result.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose/scope, return value, and the critical false-clearance warning. The long first sentence is information-dense rather than padded, and the most important caveat is placed last where it can emphatically close the description.

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 complex screening tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: list coverage, return content, and the affiliate-rule risk. It doesn't describe the structure of a candidate match or how 'ranked' scores should be interpreted, but those are relatively minor given the detailed input schema and explicit caveat.

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 80%, so the schema already documents names, country, minScore, and listCodes. The description adds useful list-name expansion and the caveat about no-match, but it doesn't materially elaborate on parameter behavior beyond what the schema states; it therefore meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action ('Screen one or more party names') and a specific resource (the U.S. Consolidated Screening List bundled with this server), then enumerates exactly which BIS, OFAC, and State lists are covered. It even states the output ('ranked candidate matches with the operative licence requirement and the authority for each list'), making it clearly distinct from siblings like determine_license_requirement or check_part744_enduse.

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 makes the intended context clear: use it to screen party names against the bundled U.S. list set, and it explicitly warns that a no-match result is not clearance. It does not, however, name sibling tools or state when an alternative should be used instead, so it falls just 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.