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

Beyond the safety annotations, the description discloses provenance and trust details: official files are compared to prior copies, each change includes the official URL, SHA-256, and date, and the publication is authoritative. It also explains pagination/polling and access via free tier or caller API key, adding substantial behavioral context.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and subsequent sentences add necessary return-record, pagination, authority, and auth details without repetition. Despite being information-dense, every sentence contributes useful context for invoking or interpreting the tool.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description adequately explains the returned change record: listing details, changed fields, and proof via official URL, SHA-256, and date. It also covers paging/polling and access modes, leaving little an agent needs to infer before calling the tool.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that next_cursor can be passed back for paging or polling; it does not add new meaning for list, since, change, or limit beyond what the schema supplies.

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 states a precise resource and verb: listings added, amended, or removed from named sanctions lists, derived by comparing official files. It clearly implies a change-tracking function rather than a search, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as sanctions_search or sanctions_entry to sharpen differentiation.

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 gives clear context for use: retrieve observed list changes, optionally paged or polled by passing next_cursor back as cursor. It does not state when to prefer this over sanctions_search or sanctions_entry, so the exclusion guidance is absent.

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