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

With readOnly/idempotent/openWorld already declared in annotations, the description adds real context: matching is fuzzy ("close spellings match"), each hit includes list, programs, addresses, IDs, remarks and an official link, and the response reports list freshness. It stops short of noting rate limits or result truncation behavior.

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 list coverage, then matching behavior, then return shape — a logical order. The parenthetical list enumeration is long but genuinely load-bearing, not filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers what results contain and what the freshness signal says, filling that gap. For a 6-parameter read-only search, the only omission is pagination/limit guidance, which is minor.

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 67%, but the description compensates by specifying that `query` accepts aliases and concrete identifier types (IMO, SWIFT/BIC, registration number) — information not present in the schema. It does not clarify `type`, `limit`, or `min_score` behavior beyond the schema's own 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?

Specific verb (search) plus the exact resource (Consolidated Screening List) and an explicit enumeration of the constituent lists (OFAC SDN, BIS Entity/DPL/UVL/MEU, State ITAR). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list_ofac_actions, which covers enforcement actions rather than screening entries.

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 strongly implied — search by name, alias or identifier — and the fuzzy-match behavior hints at the intended lookup workflow. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_ofac_actions, nor any exclusion or prerequisite, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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