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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the returned content, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not say what happens for an unknown or malformed ID, which is the one behavioral gap.

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, no filler: the first front-loads what is returned, the second front-loads the prerequisite. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields, and it explains ID provenance. For a one-parameter read tool it is close to complete; only error/not-found behavior and the accepted ID types are left unstated.

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 'id' parameter is documented as a Prometiam internal sanctions-entity ID, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining where a valid ID comes from (a sanctions_screen match), which the schema does not say. It does not address the integer-or-string union in the schema.

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 ('Fetch full detail for a single sanctions entity') and enumerates the payload (aliases, issuing programme/list, listing date, identifying data). The closing sentence names sanctions_screen as the source of the ID, which separates it from the screening siblings without any schema lookup.

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 prerequisite and trigger: 'Get an ID from a sanctions_screen match', which tells the agent this is the drill-down step after screening. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. don't call this for bulk lookups — use sanctions_screen_batch), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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