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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the 5-stage match cascade (exact, substring, fuzzy), the nature of returned data (programs, countries, AKAs, confidence scores), and the decision-support role. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful insight into how the tool behaves.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, the second details the matching algorithm and filters, and the third provides a critical limitation. Every sentence adds value with no filler or repetition. It is structured for quick comprehension and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides sufficient high-level output information ('returns matches with programs, countries, AKAs, and 0.0-1.0 confidence'). It explains the matching logic and the decision-support limitation. It does not detail exact response structure or pagination, but for a read-only search tool with annotations covering safety, the provided context is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 67% (q, country, program, sdn_type have descriptions; limit and min_confidence only have defaults/ranges). The description mentions filters by sdn_type/country/program, which aligns with schema fields but adds little beyond what is already in the schema. Since coverage is above 50%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly compensate for the undocumented limit/min_confidence parameters.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('the US Treasury OFAC SDN list'), and the primary action ('by name'). It also details the match cascade and output fields, distinguishing it from any generic 'search' tool. The caveat 'Decision support — not a substitute for full multi-list KYC' further clarifies its scope, making it easy for an agent to understand exactly what this tool does.

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?

The description provides clear context about what the tool does (OFAC SDN screening) and a limitation ('not a substitute for full multi-list KYC'), which implies when to use it (for OFAC-specific checks). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions for when NOT to use it versus other compliance-related siblings like compliance_signal or counterparty_risk. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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