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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns 'found'/'unavailable' statuses, and every result carries source, publication date, checksum, and retrieval time. It also adds the caveat 'Reference only, not legal advice', which goes beyond structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds value: the enumeration scope, the status values, the legal caveat, and the result provenance. No fluff or redundancy.

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, read-only enumeration tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, scope, statuses, and result guarantees. It is contextually complete given the tool's simplicity and the existing annotations/output schema.

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, so the empty schema leaves no ambiguity. The description compensates by clarifying what each result includes (regulation/legal basis, since date, subject count, provenance metadata), even though it does not need to explain parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Enumerate' and names the resource 'EU sanctions programmes/regimes' with explicit detail (regulation/legal basis, since date, subject count). It distinguishes itself from sibling screening tools by labeling this the 'policy-layer read', clearly identifying its scope.

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 communicates clear context: it is a policy-layer read, reference-only, not legal advice, and operates on the 'snapshot'. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or exclusions, but the 'policy-layer read' phrasing implies it is not for entity-level screening.

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