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

The description goes well beyond what the sparse annotations provide: it warns that NO_PUBLIC_ALERT_FOUND is not a compliance guarantee, explains that inferred matches are explicitly marked with confidence, and notes that a domain is checked as a separate subject. It also discloses the cost per call, which is relevant 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 description is well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose. There is minor redundancy between 'No match must be interpreted as a guarantee of compliance' and the later NO_PUBLIC_ALERT_FOUND limitation, but the overall length is justified by the complexity and usage guidance.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, when to use, when to avoid, alternative tools, limitations, and pricing. This is complete enough for an agent to confidently select and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful clarification for the optional domain parameter by explaining that it is checked separately and is not considered officially associated with the company. The identifier parameter is sufficiently described by the schema's pattern and description.

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 tool 'Checks a French company against multiple public alert and sanctions sources,' identifying both the resource and the specific compliance purpose. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with company/fr/risk for insolvency or deregistration risk.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Avoid when' sections with concrete conditions, including the specific alternative company/fr/risk. It also clarifies unsupported use cases like full AML/KYC decisions and beneficial-owner screening, leaving no ambiguity about when the tool is appropriate.

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