vera_sanctions

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

With no annotations, the description discloses return values (risk_score, audit hash) and cost ($0.05 USDC via x402). However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or operational details like rate limits or response format.

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 extremely concise, conveying purpose, coverage, output, and cost in a single sentence. No unnecessary words.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides high-level purpose and output but lacks parameter descriptions and usage context. It is minimally complete for a simple tool.

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 0% and the description does not explain the three parameters (name, type, country). The description only mentions 'Sanctions screening' without linking to parameters, leaving agents to infer meaning.

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 performs sanctions screening against specific lists (OFAC SDN, SARLAFT CO, etc.) and specifies the output (risk_score and audit hash). It distinguishes from siblings (vera_context, vera_entity, vera_rates) which cover different areas.

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 usage for sanctions screening but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor provide when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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