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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses pricing (1 credit per call), the unauthenticated preview cap (5 rows, 20 calls/day), and a data-minimization policy (DOB, identity documents, contact details dropped at ingest) that directly affects screening completeness. This is the kind of context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the dataset contains, then behavioral limits, then cost. No filler; every clause conveys a fact an agent would otherwise have to discover.

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 13 mostly undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should say more about result shape and pagination (page/per_page semantics, what a 'row' contains beyond aliases/dates). It covers data scope, cost, and access tiers well but leaves the returned record structure largely implicit.

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 0% across 13 parameters, and the description only clarifies two things: 'q' searches all text fields and filters AND together. Nothing distinguishes 'name' from 'q', explains the 'countries' string format, or names the accepted values for 'regime', 'designation_type', or 'designation_source'.

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?

Names the exact resource (official UK Sanctions List, FCDO) and the covered entity types (individuals, entities, ships) plus included fields (regimes, aliases, dates). This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like query_eu_ted or query_sam_exclusions because the source list is named.

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 phrase 'normalized for supplier due diligence' implies a screening/compliance use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-a-sibling guidance (e.g., vs. query_eu_ted for EU designations). Filter composition ('filters combine with AND') is behavioral, not usage selection.

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