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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it warns that risk_level is inverted relative to check_entity's trust_level ('high means high risk, the reverse of check_entity's trust_level'), and states what is NOT returned (no recommendation or factors). It does not mention latency or rate limits, but the semantic-inversion warning is high-value.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then differentiation, then return semantics, then args; every sentence carries information. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the structured schema, which is the only mild inefficiency.

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?

With an output schema present the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it usefully flags the semantic inversion that a schema alone would not convey. Combined with the sibling routing advice and full parameter formats, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only edge cases (bad name/country input handling) are unaddressed.

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 0% (parameters carry only titles), so the description must compensate and largely does: entity_name is specified as the full legal name and country as an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code, which prevents a country-name vs. code mistake. It doesn't note anything about malformed or ambiguous names, so it falls just short of full compensation.

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 verb+resource ('quick risk score from sanctions screening and country risk only') and immediately scopes what it does not cover. It explicitly names the sibling check_entity and the difference ('no register or domain lookup'), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use condition ('Use when you only need basic risk evaluation') and an explicit alternative plus the reason to pick it (check_entity for register/domain lookup, recommendation or factors). The trade-off between speed and depth is spelled out rather than implied.

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