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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes further by enumerating outcome states including the 'unknown (stale/unavailable)' degraded mode and reporting freshness/list version/attribution, which tells the agent data may be stale. The 'reference relay only' disclaimer clarifies the output is not a compliance verdict.

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?

Front-loaded as a direct question, then a dense enumeration of return states, then the disclaimer. Slightly packed but every clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is technically redundant, but the description still usefully flags degraded/stale results and attribution that an agent needs for correct interpretation. Nothing critical is missing for calling a 2-parameter screening 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the Latin/Japanese examples. The description restates the Latin-or-Japanese name constraint but adds nothing about max_candidates beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (screen) and resource (person or entity name) against a precisely named list (Japan MOF asset-freeze under the Foreign Exchange Act). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like sanctions_list_changes and catalog.

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 usage (screening a name) and adds an interpretive boundary via 'Reference relay only: not a compliance determination or a statement that a transaction is permitted.' However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus sanctions_list_changes or other siblings, leaving routing to inference.

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