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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations: it discloses the result cap (up to 10), ordering (closest match first), the presence of an id for follow-up fetch and a citation link, the critical semantics that a hit is name similarity and not an identity match, that a miss is not a clearance, and the operational profile (free, no account, 100 searches/day per internet address). This is exactly the context an agent needs to interpret and call the tool responsibly.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler; purpose is front-loaded and the result/limit caveats follow in a sensible order. Dense but every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is optional, yet the description still summarizes results usefully. Combined with rate limits, result semantics, and the fetch linkage, the definition is nearly self-sufficient; the only real gap is sibling disambiguation against screen_entity and screen_address.

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 100% and the single query parameter is fully documented in the schema with length and an example, so the schema already carries the burden. The description restates 'person or company name' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what is structured.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope ('Search the 14 sanctions and export-control lists for a person or company name'), and hints at the fetch sibling via the returned id. It does not, however, distinguish itself from screen_entity or screen_address, which are the most confusable siblings.

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 implied (quick name lookup against sanctions lists) and the description adds useful interpretive cautions ('a result is name similarity, not a finding that it is the same party', 'an empty result does not clear the name'). But it never says when to prefer search over screen_entity, screen_address, or list_sanctions_sources, leaving the routing choice to inference.

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