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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns confidence scores (0-100) and explains their interpretation ('100 = exact ID match, 80+ = strong fuzzy match, lower = review needed'). It also notes that fuzzy search and transliteration are applied, which is behavior not captured by annotations. This enriches the agent's understanding of result quality and review requirements.

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 concise and well-structured: one sentence for the core action, one for optional filters, and one for output interpretation. Every sentence earns its place and is front-loaded with the most essential information. No wasted words or redundant details.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains return values (matches with confidence scores and their meaning). It also covers search scope and optional narrowing. However, it does not mention limit/threshold behavior or what happens with no matches, though these are in the schema. The overall completeness is good for a read-only search tool, but not exhaustive.

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 already provides 100% parameter descriptions, including format for dob, transliteration for name, defaults for limit/threshold, and ISO code for nationality. The description adds little beyond the schema—it only mentions that dob and nationality are optional filters. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for any missing 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 function: 'Fuzzy-search a sanctioned person by name across all loaded lists.' This specifies the verb (search), resource (person), and scope (sanctioned lists), distinguishing it from the sibling 'search_entity' which likely targets entities rather than persons. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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: it searches persons across all loaded lists and mentions optional filters (dob, nationality) that narrow results. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'search_entity' or provide exclusion criteria. Since the purpose clarity already differentiates siblings, the lack of explicit alternatives keeps this at a 4 rather than 5.

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