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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key trait: results are 'merged across lists', which tells the agent it searches multiple lists. However, it does not mention read-only semantics, pagination, rate limits, or behavior on empty results. Since it's a search tool, the read-only nature is implied, but not explicit. The description adds some behavioral context but not enough for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds a usage hint. Every word earns its place, and the structure is efficient and scannable.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of 'limit', gives no selection guidance against siblings, and doesn't mention output shape (though an output schema exists). The description covers only the keyword and the merged-lists behavior, leaving significant gaps that an agent must guess.

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 for both parameters. The description explains the keyword parameter indirectly ('Use company or individual name') but says nothing about the 'limit' parameter, its purpose, or its default behavior. The agent is left to infer that limit controls result count, which is not stated. Given the zero coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'export control / sanctions entity lists', and adds the scope 'merged across lists'. It also gives a hint about input ('company or individual name'). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like query_dualuse or query_prohibited, but the resource type is specific enough that an agent can infer it's for entity lists rather than other categories. A 4 is appropriate since it's clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (query_any, query_dualuse, query_fta_origin, query_prohibited, query_tariff). It only hints at input type, not selection criteria or exclusions. An agent would have to infer from the name and resource that this is for entity searches, but the description doesn't state when to choose it over alternatives, so the usage guidance is minimal.

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