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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully adds what annotations cannot: plan gating and the asynchronous delivery of results via the sanctions_watchlist channel or webhook_url. It does not explain why the call is flagged destructive (e.g. whether an existing entry is overwritten) or how duplicate names are handled, so significant behavioral gaps remain.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first, then the gating and side-effect details in a subordinate clause. No filler, no restating of the title.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important runtime consequence (re-screening plus notification destination) and the plan requirement. It stops short of telling the agent what the call returns or what happens when the name already exists, which matters given the idempotent and destructive hints.

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 67%, above the baseline where the schema does most of the work. The description adds real meaning only for webhook_url ('calls webhook_url when set'), while entity_type and its enum are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given how self-describing the values are.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Add a name to your sanctions watchlist', which is clearly distinguishable from the sibling set (sanctions_unwatch, sanctions_watchlist, sanctions_screen). The only slight ambiguity is that it names 'sanctions_watchlist' as the reporting channel, a token identical to a sibling tool name, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

It states the access prerequisite ('sanctions_watch scope, Starter and above') and describes the ongoing-monitoring behavior, which implicitly frames this as the persistent option versus a one-off screen. It never explicitly names an alternative tool or an exclusion case, but the operational context is strong enough to route the agent correctly.

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