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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool takes no input, returns no PII, includes hash values, and clarifies an important subtlety about the staleness flag keying on fetch age rather than publish age. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, but 'Return' plus 'No input' strongly implies it.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, the return fields are enumerated compactly, and the key behavioral nuance about fetch age vs publish age earns its place.

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 zero-parameter metadata tool without an output schema, the description fully covers what is returned, the staleness threshold, the version-confirmation use case, and the no-input/no-PII safety property. Nothing essential is 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema fully reflects that. The description reinforces this with 'No input, no PII,' which is helpful. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('provenance AND freshness of the loaded OFAC SDN list'), then enumerates the exact data returned. It is clearly differentiated from the sibling screen_sdn, which performs screening rather than metadata inspection.

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?

Explicitly states the intended use: 'Use this to confirm which list version a screening ran against, and how current it is.' It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name screen_sdn as the alternative, but the use case is clear enough given the sibling context.

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