sanctions-screening

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full burden. It discloses the action (checks against a list), output items (match score, sanctions program(s), entity type), and coverage (~19,000 entries, specific programs). It does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or real-time status, but the provided details are sufficient for basic behavioral understanding.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by output details and use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, behavior, output elements, coverage scope, and use cases. Missing details like the exact format of match score or error handling, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value: for 'name' it mentions 'Full name preferred; partial name also works', and for 'type' and 'limit' it restates schema info. This slight addition does not significantly improve on the schema.

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 specific verb 'checks' and the precise resource 'US Treasury Specially Designated Nationals list', covering entity types (person, company, vessel, aircraft). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'company-due-diligence' by focusing exclusively on OFAC sanctions screening.

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 lists concrete use cases (payment compliance, KYB/KYC, AML checks, counterparty due diligence), giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for other compliance checks.

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