sanctions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: the tool performs a sanctions list check with direct lookup and optional fuzzy fallback. It does not mention response format or error handling, but the behavioral traits beyond annotations are adequately covered.

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 only two sentences long, no filler words, and front-loads the core purpose immediately. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information about the tool's operation.

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 simple check tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It could be improved by briefly noting the expected response (e.g., whether it returns a boolean or list) but is still sufficiently complete given the annotations and schema coverage.

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 schema descriptions for both parameters are identical to the tool description's usage context. However, the tool description adds value by framing the parameters within the overall usage pattern (direct then fuzzy), which enhances semantic understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Check whether a Czech IČO (or any company by IČO) appears on sanctions lists'. It specifies the verb (check), resource (IČO against sanctions), and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_entity or search_person which would be used for broader name-based searches.

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 guidance on usage: 'Direct exact-ID lookup; pass `name` to also fuzzy-match if no direct hit.' It explains the two modes of operation but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools for other scenarios.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the ID format and examples, which is helpful context. No contradictions. It does not detail the 'full record' scope, but the annotations carry the safety burden.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, includes examples, no redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the input well but does not describe the return structure. Some loss of completeness due to missing output format.

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 schema covers the single parameter with a description, and the description adds the ID format with concrete examples, providing additional meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 the verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'full record for a single sanctions listing', and the ID format with examples. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by focusing on a single known ID.

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 the ID format but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like search_entity. Usage context is implied but not clarified with when-not or alternative recommendations.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that tool lists changes (added/removed/modified) and requires a date, which is useful but not extensive.

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 waste. First sentence immediately states purpose; second gives usage guidance. Perfectly concise.

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?

Simple tool with 2 params and no output schema. Description covers purpose, usage, and key parameter. It doesn't describe return format, but that is often implicit for a list.

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 both parameters are well-described. Description mentions 'since a given date' but adds no new details beyond 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?

Description clearly states the action (list), resource (sanctions updates), and scope (since a given date). It distinguishes from siblings which are about checking, getting a single listing, or searching entities/persons.

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 states use case: 'daily monitoring against a watchlist'. Provides clear context for when to use, though no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

Adds that search is fuzzy and that optional country narrows results, complementing the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations.

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?

Single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, efficiently conveying the tool's core function.

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?

Missing description of return format, and no output schema present; though inputs are well documented, the tool's output behavior is not explained.

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%, so description adds minimal value beyond restating parameter purpose; baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specifies verb 'fuzzy-search' and resource 'sanctioned entity (company, organization)', clearly distinguishing from sibling tool search_person which searches individuals.

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?

Implied differentiation by name and entity type, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool vs alternatives like search_person.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by explaining fuzzy matching, confidence scores (0-100), and interpretation of scores, which are behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, optional inputs, output interpretation. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 compensates by explaining the return format (matches with confidence scores) and what scores mean. It covers input, behavior, and output interpretation adequately. Pagination or empty result handling are minor omissions.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by noting 'transliteration applied' for the name parameter and explaining the confidence score ranges tied to threshold. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 the verb 'fuzzy-search', the resource 'sanctioned person', and the scope 'across all loaded lists'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_entity by specifying it's for sanctioned persons.

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 context on when to use (searching by name with optional filters) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., search_entity) or mention when not to use. The optional parameters are well-described, but sibling differentiation is implicit.

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