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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the search field (name) and the specific list, but doesn't add details about search behavior (e.g., partial matching, case sensitivity, pagination, exact name requirements). With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some context beyond annotations.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words, efficient and clear.

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 tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover safety, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the search key but not the 'completo' parameter or potential return behavior (e.g., details shown). For a simple lookup tool, this is a minimal viable level, but it could mention whether results include full details or just confirmation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'por nome' which maps to the NOME parameter, adding some meaning. However, it does not explain the 'completo' boolean parameter, and no default values or optional behavior are described. With two parameters and one explained, this is average compensation.

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 searches the UK sanctions list (HM Treasury) by name, which specifies the verb (buscar), resource (lista de sanções do Reino Unido/HM Treasury), and the search key (por nome). It distinguishes from siblings by naming the specific list (HM Treasury), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other compliance_* tools, but the named resource is sufficient.

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 gives context (when to use it: searching UK sanctions list) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. Since there are many sibling compliance_* tools, the description implies usage but doesn't name alternatives like compliance_ofac or compliance_ue. Minimal viable guidance.

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