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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, such as the scoring mechanism (returns scored candidates, pep true at 0.7 threshold) and the role of optional parameters in sharpening matching. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context on result interpretation.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by behavior and parameter details. No redundant or filler content; every sentence contributes to understanding the 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics adequately. It could mention edge cases (e.g., no matches) but is sufficiently complete for a screening tool.

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 description adds significant meaning to parameters beyond the schema: it explains the format for birth_date (YYYY-MM-DD or partial) and country (name or ISO code), and states these sharpen matching. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is essential and well-executed.

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 clearly states the tool screens a person's name against the OpenSanctions PEP dataset, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the PEP dataset and the person-name focus, unlike other screening tools for emails, addresses, etc.

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 implies when to use the tool (for screening a person against PEP data) and provides clear context, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks exclusions, though the sibling list and the description make the intended use clear.

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