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

Beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations it discloses the required sanctions_watch scope and a tier-dependent cap on the number of entries, which an agent cannot infer from structured fields. Return shape (watchlists plus recent hits) is sketched but not detailed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the prerequisite, then the sibling routing. No filler or repetition 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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the access requirement, and how to modify the list. A brief note on return shape or pagination/limits behaviour for recent hits would make it complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline applies; the description correctly describes a no-argument listing call and adds no misleading parameter expectations.

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 ('Return your sanctions watchlists') plus the payload ('any recent hits against them'), which immediately separates it from the mutation siblings sanctions_watch and sanctions_unwatch.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to sanctions_watch for adding and sanctions_unwatch for removing entries, and states the scope prerequisite. It does not say when to prefer this over adjacent read tools such as sanctions_changes or sanctions_screen, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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