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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 10,000-record batch limit and clarifies that top-level fields are defaults applied to records omitting them, which is behavior beyond what annotations state. It does not describe return format, but the safety profile is covered by 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?

Three sentences: purpose, structure/defaults, and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. The example is compact and illustrative without unnecessary detail.

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 5 parameters, a nested records array, and no output schema, the description covers invocation, batching, defaults, and an example. The only gap is the absence of any hint about the response format or how results map to inputs, though external_identifier's schema description partially addresses correlation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explaining the defaulting mechanism (top-level fields apply to records that omit them) and showing an example where external_identifier is used for correlation. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Batch-screen up to 10,000 records against sanctions/PEP/watchlists in one request.' It clearly distinguishes this bulk tool from the single-record sibling sanctions_search, and the 10,000-record ceiling adds precision.

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 batch usage ('in one request') and explains top-level defaults, but it never explicitly names sanctions_search as the alternative for single-record screening. It gives clear operating context through the example, yet lacks an explicit when/when-not statement.

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