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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds meaningful operational details: cost per check, signed X-PAYMENT header requirement, and data source (OFAC SDN + UN Security Council). It also discloses return fields. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't elaborate on the destructive side effect implied by the annotation.

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?

Description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return info, data source, and cost/auth details. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. No fluff or 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 tool with moderate complexity and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, outputs (verification status, risk score, matches), and operational requirements (cost, header). It lacks guidance on parameter combinations or when to use this vs sibling tools, which is a notable gap but not critical given the schema and annotations.

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% with all four parameters described. The description doesn't add extra meaning about parameter formats or how they interrelate (e.g., wallet_address vs entity_id). Since the schema already handles parameter semantics, the baseline score of 3 applies—no additional value from the description.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('KYC identity verification check') with clear targets (OFAC and UN sanctions lists). It also mentions returns like risk score and sanctions/PEP matches, which differentiates from generic screens. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like aml_screen or wallet_screen, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as aml_screen or wallet_screen. It mentions prerequisites (payment header) but not when this tool is preferred or when it should be avoided. The description implies a KYC use case but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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