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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds only the matching action and use case, not deeper behavioral context such as match semantics or list behavior; it does not contradict the annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides valuable selection context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 correct invocation, the required address parameter and all optional parameters are fully documented in the schema, and annotations cover the operational safety profile. The description could explicitly contrast with sanctions_screen_entity or describe result semantics, but these are not necessary for calling 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents address, limit, sources, and threshold. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action, 'match', and a specific resource, 'a physical address against listed addresses.' This clearly differentiates it from entity-based screening tools like sanctions_screen_entity, and the use-case sentence reinforces the address-focused purpose.

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 context for when to use the tool: KYC and supplier vetting when the counterparty's name is generic but the address is distinctive. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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