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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that updates can be added/removed/modified, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any limitations (e.g., openWorldHint implications). It adds some context beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.

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 sentences: the first states the function, the second states the intended use. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with two well-documented parameters and read-only annotations. The description explains what it does and when to use it. It lacks a mention of response structure, but for a filtered-list tool with strong schema coverage, this is reasonably 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%, with both 'since' and 'source' having descriptive text. The description's phrase 'since a given date' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 lists sanctions updates (added/removed/modified) since a given date. This is a specific verb+resource+time scope, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like search_entity or check_ico, which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly advises 'Use for daily monitoring against a watchlist,' which provides a clear context for when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough to guide selection.

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