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

Annotations already convey read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond those annotations, including that matches include confidence scores and that the call consumes a hosted query allowance with free-tier and paid-plan pricing implications.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by return semantics and cost/quota context. It is concise and every sentence contributes useful information, though the billing sentence is slightly tangential to invocation behavior.

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 the fully documented input schema and rich annotations, the description is largely complete for a single-entity screening tool. It could be stronger by explicitly routing users to sanctions_screen_address or sanctions_screen_batch when an address or multiple names are involved, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents name, limit, sources, and threshold. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that a single name or entity is screened and that matches carry confidence scores, so it does not rise above the baseline.

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 action — screening a single name or entity — and names the exact target resources (OFAC SDN, EU consolidated, UN consolidated, BIS DPL). It also says the tool returns matches with confidence scores. This differentiates it from sibling tools like sanctions_screen_address and sanctions_screen_batch via the word 'single'.

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 provides clear context: use this when you need to screen a single name or entity against the four major sanctions lists. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as sanctions_screen_batch for multiple names or sanctions_screen_address for physical addresses, but the 'single name or entity' phrasing makes the primary use case clear.

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