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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: case-insensitive substring matching semantics, the lists_as_of freshness signal, and the x402 payment model ($0.005 USDC per successful call, PaymentRequired on unpaid, no charge for failures). It also cautions that offshore/adverse-media hits are leads, not proof of wrongdoing.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and routing before behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place, though the inline enumeration of five category meanings in a single sentence makes it dense and slightly long.

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?

Complete: an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description still notes the lists_as_of freshness field. Cost, matching semantics, category meanings, and sibling routing are all covered.

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% (baseline 3), but the description goes further by defining what each enum value means (fsc_licensee, licensed_entity, offshore_entity, pep, adverse_media) and stating that omitting category searches all — information the schema's terse 'Optional record type filter' does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Mauritius-specific records), then enumerates exactly what record types are covered by each category value. An agent can distinguish this from screen_entity and run_due_diligence without opening any schema.

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 gives when-to-use ('Mauritius counterparties or to confirm a licence') and names two alternatives with their distinguishing conditions: screen_entity for global sanctions/watchlists and run_due_diligence to combine both with a risk score.

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