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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating it 'returns deterministic candidate scores, program tags, source hashes, and freshness evidence without issuing an allow or block verdict,' which clarifies output type and decisional boundaries. This is useful, though not exhaustive.

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 a single sentence but packs all essential information: the action, the source, the output elements, and a critical caveat (no verdict). It is concise without being under-specified, and every phrase contributes meaning.

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 a list-search tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It specifies the input type (business/organization), the data source (OFAC SDN and Non-SDN), and the nature of the output. It could mention pagination or rate limits, but these are not essential for core use.

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%, with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., 'minimum_score' notes it is not OFAC's interactive-search score). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and clearly defines the resource ('business or organization name' against 'official OFAC SDN and Consolidated Non-SDN files'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact OFAC dataset and the unique output (candidate scores, program tags, source hashes, freshness evidence), making it unambiguous.

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 clearly implies use for OFAC sanctions list screening against business/organization names, which provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like research.lei-entity-search, so it stops short of full guidance.

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