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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotence. The description adds useful behavioral context: it operates on a cache, returns counts/timestamps, does no screening, and costs nothing. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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 short sentences with no filler. The purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the screening exclusion and free-call note add value without padding.

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 zero-parameter status endpoint, the description is complete: it specifies what is returned (counts and last-update timestamps), the scope (all four lists in the cache), and what it does not do (no screening). The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit return description.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to explain beyond what the schema already covers. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 ('Counts and last-update timestamps') and a specific resource ('all four lists in the cache'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from screening operations, which separates it from the many sanctions_screen_* and sanctions_search_* siblings.

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 states that no screening is performed, telling the agent this is not the tool for entity screening, which is the main alternative use case among sibling tools. It adds that the call is free, implying it is a lightweight status check. It does not explicitly name the screening siblings, but the exclusion is clear.

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