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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral details beyond the schema: fields dropped at ingest ('dates of birth, identity documents, and contact details are dropped'), the compliance-oriented provenance, AND-combined filtering, and cost of 1 credit per call. With no annotations present, this is a solid disclosure, though pagination/error behavior are not covered.

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 terse sentences front-load the core scope and purpose, then add operational details without wasted words. Every sentence 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?

The tool is complex (13 params, no annotations, no output schema), and the description covers scope, dropped fields, filter semantics, and cost. Still, it leaves return-structure details, pagination behavior, and most per-parameter meanings unstated. Adequate for an initial call but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains q as a full-text search and the AND-combination rule, but 13 parameters exist and most (name, countries, unique_id, designation_type, designation_source, date fields, page/per_page) receive no semantic explanation. This is insufficient for a tool this parameter-heavy.

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 resource ('official UK Sanctions List (FCDO)'), the scope ('individuals, entities, and ships'), and the included fields ('regimes, aliases, and dates'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling query tools covering companies, insolvency, tenders, and exclusions.

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' and 'Served as published by government for compliance purposes' gives clear intended context. It also provides query-construction guidance ('Filters combine with AND; q searches all text fields'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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