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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context about data fidelity ('The record reflects exactly what the source published; missing fields mean the source omitted them') and the tool's non-determinative nature. These go beyond the annotations and clarify potential pitfalls, though some nuance like pagination or error handling is absent.

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 description is a compact three-sentence block with the purpose front-loaded, followed by return contents and a behavioral warning. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has an output schema, so return format details are covered there. The description covers the workflow trigger, what fields are returned, data fidelity expectations, and the tool's role as a screening aid. For a two-parameter read-only fetch, this is fully adequate; nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds a key pointer: entryId is 'the sourceEntryId from sanctions_screen_name,' which establishes the expected provenance and reduces misuse risk. This is meaningful added value over the schema alone, but does not fully elaborate on edge cases like invalid source values.

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 clearly states the verb 'fetch' and the resource 'full record for one sanctions designation by source list + entry ID', immediately distinguishing it from the screening tool it complements. It also explicitly positions it as the drill-in after sanctions_screen_name, which differentiates it from siblings like sanctions_get_entity.

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 explicitly names the preceding step ('the drill-in after sanctions_screen_name surfaces a candidate') and the alternative workflow, making the usage context unambiguous. It also adds a critical boundary: 'it is not itself a determination,' guiding the agent on when to rely on this tool vs. making a final compliance decision.

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