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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: ordering (newest first), the fact that each change carries the affected entity, and that records can be joined back to sanctions_entity. Pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter is not discussed.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core scope and ordering are front-loaded and the usage hint follows immediately. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 four-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers scope, ordering and result shape enough to call it correctly. Minor missing detail on volume/pagination expectations keeps it from a 5.

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% with per-parameter descriptions including examples and ranges, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail for 'since', 'list' or 'change_type' beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('List additions, removals and amendments detected on the sanctions lists') plus ordering ('newest first'). The contrast with re-screening a whole book of business makes it distinguishable from sanctions_screen without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('what changed recently') and implicitly steers away from full re-screening, which points at sanctions_screen as the alternative. It does not name that sibling explicitly or state exclusions, so it falls short of a full when/when-not pairing.

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