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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: payment model (prepaid credit), no credentials required, data is public and not private/confidential, and LGPD compliance responsibilities. This goes well beyond the structured 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 first sentence is direct and front-loaded with the core purpose. The following sentences add valuable context about hosting, payment, and data privacy, though the LGPD clause is somewhat verbose. Overall, it is concise enough and each sentence earns its place.

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 description covers purpose, data source, access method, and legal considerations, but it does not describe the return format or what the output looks like. Since there is no output schema, this is a notable gap. The 'completo' parameter semantics are also missing, making the description incomplete for a simple query 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?

The schema has two parameters (Nome and completo) with no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description implicitly explains Nome via 'verifica se um nome', but it gives no meaning for 'completo' (boolean). The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameter semantics incomplete.

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's function: 'Verifica se um nome consta na lista de sanções financeiras do Reino Unido (HM Treasury)' with a specific verb (Verifica) and resource (sanctions list). It also specifies the purpose (compliance and AML due diligence), making it distinct from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 provides clear usage context: use for compliance/AML checks, hosted by the platform, no credentials, pay-per-query with prepaid credit. It also notes that the data is public access. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative sanctions-list tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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