watchlist_screen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses fuzzy matching, name-based matching, return of matched records, and the risk that hits are not identity confirmation. It could add output field or rate-limit details, but the key behavioral caveat is well covered.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences. The first scopes the tool and names its data sources; the second states the return behavior and adds the essential verification caveat. No 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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description plus fully documented schema is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit read-only/no-side-effect statement, though 'screen' and 'returns' strongly imply it.

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%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters. The description reinforces the fuzzy-match behavior tied to minScore and includeAliases, but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 action (screen) against a specific resource (person/business name against 12 U.S. government watchlists via the Consolidated Screening List). Enumerated list sources make the scope concrete and clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like business_search or federal_awards.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: name-based watchlist screening. The NOTE adds an important boundary (not identity confirmation, verify before acting), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions that should route the agent elsewhere.

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