Fuzzy-search a sanctioned entity (company, organization) by name. Optional country narrows results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Company / organization name. | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 20). | |
| country | No | Country filter (name or ISO code). | |
| threshold | No | Min confidence (default 80). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'fuzzy-search' behavior and country narrowing, but does not disclose return format, ranking details, or what happens with no results. This is adequate but not rich for a search tool.
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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose and a key optional filter in minimal words.
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 simple search function, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient. It could optionally mention that results include confidence scores (implied by the threshold parameter), but this is not a critical gap.
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 detailed descriptions for name, limit, country, and threshold. The description only adds that country 'narrows results', which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter meaning.
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 verb ('Fuzzy-search') and resource ('sanctioned entity (company, organization)'), and the parenthetical disambiguates it from the sibling search_person. This is a specific, actionable purpose that distinguishes the tool.
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 implies usage for companies/organizations and mentions that country is an optional narrowing filter, giving some context. However, it does not explicitly name search_person as the alternative for individuals, so usage guidance falls short of a perfect score.
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.