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

Annotations already declare this tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by stating that it returns 'all matching sanctions/PEP/criminal records plus the raw response,' which goes beyond what annotations or schema alone communicate. There is no contradiction between the description and the 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 compact and front-loaded: two sentences establish purpose and return behavior, followed by a single illustrative example. Every element earns its place, with no tautological filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple 2-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers scope, return content, and required arguments via the example. Since no output schema exists, the explicit mention of the return payload ('all matching... records plus the raw response') is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with both names and _apiKey fully described in the schema. The description's example invocation reinforces the expected format but does not add substantive meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

The description states a specific operation ('Broad watchlist name check') and a precise scope ('all entity types — individuals, entities, vessels, aircraft'). It also names the output categories ('sanctions/PEP/criminal records') and includes a concrete example, making the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from the sibling check_entity and check_individual 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 phrase 'Broad watchlist name check across all entity types' clearly communicates that this is the general-purpose name-screening tool, appropriate when an entity type is unknown or a cross-type match is desired. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as dilisense_check_entity or dilisense_check_individual or state when not to use this tool.

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