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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the name-based search scope but provides no additional behavioral context such as matching behavior, case sensitivity, or result limits.

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 single short sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the main action and resource, making it immediately scannable and free of redundancy.

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 is a simple read-only lookup with helpful annotations, so a short description is mostly acceptable. The main gap is the unexplained 'completo' parameter, which prevents the description from being fully complete for an agent deciding whether and how to 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It explains NOME via 'por nome' but provides zero information about the 'completo' boolean parameter, leaving its purpose and effect entirely unclear.

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 verb 'Busca' clearly identifies a search action, and the resource 'listas de sanções OFAC (EUA)' is specific and unambiguous. The scope 'por nome' distinguishes it from sibling tools covering other sanction lists such as ONU, UE, and UK.

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 implies the tool is for searching US OFAC sanctions by name, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like compliance_onu or compliance_ue, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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