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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns list_version and as-of metadata, is post-quantum signed, and costs $1.00 USDC. This is useful context beyond annotations, and no contradiction exists.

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 well-structured sentences. The use case and output are stated upfront, with pricing at the end. No fluff.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, input values, output contents (list_version and as-of metadata), and cost. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

With schema providing no description for the 'dataset' parameter (0% coverage), the description compensates fully by listing the allowed values: ofac, oig, or sam. This gives the agent the necessary semantic information to invoke correctly.

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 ('Get') and resource (data freshness attestation), specifies the exact purpose (post-quantum signed attestation of screening-list currency), and names the datasets (OFAC, OIG LEIE, SAM). It clearly differentiates from likely siblings like get_ofac_sanctions_screening by focusing on attestation metadata rather than actual screening.

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 says 'Use when an examiner or compliance workflow needs a post-quantum signed attestation of screening-list currency.' It also notes the attestation is for the same versions bound into screening responses, tying to related tools. However, it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the context strongly implies it.

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