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

Annotations already declare a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: exact matching rules (case/accent/punctuation/suffix insensitive, no fuzzy or transliteration), candidate handling (separate, never merged), per-match payload (source row, action, status, date, URL, locator, snapshot date), and the scope limit that issuer relationships never extend an action.

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 resource and its scope; every clause carries information. It is dense and semicolon-heavy, verging on overpacked, but no sentence is wasted, so it earns its length for a highly nuanced matching tool.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so well: it explains that each match carries direct records with action/status/date/URL/locator/snapshot date plus optional issuer relationships. Combined with the scope caveats, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds real value on matching semantics for 'name' (exact register key or stated alias, no partial/fuzzy match) and clarifies include_related's behavior at the action level rather than just restating the schema text.

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 (checks) and resource (company/facility name) against a precisely named register (MORVS U.S. Forced Labor Company Register), enumerating what the register contains. It is easily distinguished from siblings like sanctions_check, screen_all, and forced_labor_source_compare because it scopes itself to the forced-labor register.

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 clear context: organisations only, personal-name queries are not run, and a non-match is not a clearance finding. However it never explicitly routes the agent to an alternative tool (e.g., sanctions_check for the broader screening) or states when this is preferred, so it stops short of naming siblings.

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