screen_entity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does this well: it discloses the exact cost, the payment chain and protocol, the absence of a free tier, the behavior when payment is missing, the Ed25519 signature, and the source_as_of freshness timestamp. This is far beyond a minimal description.

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 three tightly packed sentences: purpose, cost/payment protocol, and unpaid behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 paid screening tool, the description covers purpose, cost, payment requirement, unpaid response behavior, response freshness, and signing. It does not detail the exact success verdict shape, and there is no output schema, but enough is provided for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 both parameters are already well described in the input schema: 'agent' identifies the caller and 'entity' is the legal name to screen. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('matches a legal name') against a specific resource (the OFAC Specially Designated Nationals list). This distinguishes it from siblings like file_dispute and verify_receipt, which serve different purposes.

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 gives clear invocation context: this is a paid tool with no free tier, and a call without an attached x402 payment will return the payment requirement instead of a verdict. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the payment prerequisite is clearly communicated.

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