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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses the return shape per hit, the failure behavior (listsUnavailable field, 503 when no lists are checked), and the pricing/charging model including that failed calls are free. This is rich behavioral context an agent needs before committing a paid call.

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, then return fields, error behavior and pricing — every sentence carries information. Slightly dense, but nothing is wasted and the important cost/behavior facts are present.

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?

For a paid, read-only screening tool, the description covers purpose, output shape, error handling, and cost model; an output schema exists but the description still conveys the non-obvious failure modes and billing, leaving an agent fully equipped to call it correctly.

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 three parameters (name, limit, country) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Searches) and a precise, named resource (the World Bank Listing of Ineligible Firms and Individuals). It distinguishes itself naturally from sibling screening tools like sanctions and screen_export_control by scoping to the World Bank debarment list.

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?

Usage is implied (compliance/procurement screening) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to guidance, and it never names the alternatives it competes with (sanctions, screen_export_control). Adequate but with a clear gap for routing.

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