Check whether a Czech IČO (or any company by IČO) appears on sanctions lists. Direct exact-ID lookup; pass name to also fuzzy-match if no direct hit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ico | Yes | Czech IČO (7-8 digits) or comparable national company ID. | |
| name | No | Optional company name for fuzzy fallback if IČO not directly listed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the exact-ID lookup and the fuzzy-match fallback with name, which goes beyond the structured data. No contradictions.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.
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 lookup tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main usage and fallback behavior. It does not explicitly state the return format, but given the simplicity, the context is largely 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description's mention of 'pass `name` to also fuzzy-match if no direct hit' mirrors the schema's existing description, adding little new semantic value. Baseline 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Check whether a Czech IČO (or any company by IČO) appears on sanctions lists.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the distinction from siblings like search_entity/search_person is evident because it focuses on IČO-based sanctions lookup.
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 on when to use the tool: 'Direct exact-ID lookup; pass `name` to also fuzzy-match if no direct hit.' This indicates it's for cases where you have an IČO, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct search method (exact ID, Czech IČO, fuzzy entity, fuzzy person) or monitoring use case (recent updates), with no functional overlap.
All tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (check_ico, get_listing, list_recent_updates, search_entity, search_person) using consistent snake_case.
Five tools provide a focused yet comprehensive interface for sanctions queries, covering exact lookup, fuzzy search, and monitoring without unnecessary bloat.
The set covers all core read operations for a sanctions checking system: exact ID lookup, fuzzy name search for entities and persons, and update monitoring. No obvious gaps for the domain.