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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond those annotations: accent- and case-insensitive matching, the requirement that every query word appear in a record, the full-name-versus-surname tradeoff, live querying, record volume, and keyless access. There is no contradiction with 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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, purpose, matching behavior, return fields, and operational characteristics are covered without repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers useful detail in a logical order.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists the specific return fields: entity type, nationality, sanction dates, prohibited practice, and originating bank. It also explains matching behavior, live data, scale, and keyless access, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool and interpret results 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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds valuable meaning for the `name` parameter by explaining matching semantics and the tradeoff between full names and bare surnames. It does not add anything specific to `limit`, `source`, or `entity_type`, but those are already well described in the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a person or firm name appears on the multilateral development bank cross-debarment list.' It explains which banks' lists are included and frames the exact question it answers ('is this vendor debarred'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling IDB search tools like idb_search_notices and idb_search_awards.

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 clear usage context: it is for 'procurement due-diligence' vendor screening. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the phrasing 'Answers "is this vendor debarred"' provides enough situational guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

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