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

Beyond the read-only/destructive annotations, the description discloses that this is a limited data view ('approved public designation identity fields only') and explicitly lists withheld categories: aliases, addresses, dates of birth, identity documents, and allegation text. It also adds important context that a designation is not an adjudication or proof of guilt.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core behavior is stated first, and the withheld-field detail earns its place by setting expectations for the response.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return format and safety, and the description clarifies data limitations. But with six undocumented parameters and no guidance on filtering or pagination, the definition is not fully complete for an agent deciding how to invoke 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 0%, so the description needed to explain the six parameters. It does not: query, limit, cursor, country, program, and entity_type are all undocumented, and opaque enum values such as 'SDNTK' and 'ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059' are left unexplained.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Return approved public designation identity fields only.' It clearly identifies the domain (OFAC designation identities) and distinguishes the tool from siblings by subject matter, even without naming alternatives.

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?

There is an implied use case: when an agent needs public OFAC designation identity fields rather than full records. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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