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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: paid per call (0.05 USDC), returns an HTTP 402 payment challenge, and describes the private beta context. However, it does not detail what data is returned after successful payment or any other side effects.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficient addition of payment and beta details. No superfluous content.

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?

While the description covers the payment mechanism and beta status, it does not describe the output format of the sanctions data itself, which is a significant gap given the absence of an output schema. The tool's main value (the records) is not explained.

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% and the description reinforces the parameter by specifying '13-digit Japanese corporate number (法人番号)' with an example. This adds practical usage context beyond the schema's generic 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 explicitly states 'Look up suspension-of-nomination and administrative action records for one Japanese corporate number', providing a specific verb and resource. The title further clarifies the Japanese context. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_open_tenders or search_subsidies.

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 mentions it is for one corporate number, but does not offer any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. Lack of comparative usage context.

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