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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing match semantics ('exact normalised or word-order-insensitive name match only'), the fields each match carries, the billing rule ('Rejected calls are not charged') and a legal disclaimer. These are exactly the behavioural facts an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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-loads the core purpose and result shape, then layers semantics, disclaimer and billing. The re-indented 'Args:' block duplicates what a docstring would normally hold and is slightly padded, but no sentence is truly wasted.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still summarises the match payload and its scoring, and it covers input semantics, disclaimer and billing. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly appears to be missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: 'name' is defined as company or person, and 'country' is documented as an optional ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code that 'orders matches, never excludes one' — a non-obvious ranking semantic not expressible in the schema.

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 and resource ('Sanctions screen against the local OFAC SDN, EU and UN lists') plus the scope of results ('matched entries'), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as sanctions_preview, wallet_sanctions_preview or check_entity, so the agent must infer the difference.

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?

Usage is implied by the name-screening context and reinforced by 'A name match is not a determination', but the description never says when to pick this over sanctions_preview or check_entity, nor states prerequisites. No explicit when-not guidance is given.

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