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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail by enumerating the exact fields returned (aliases, addresses, identity documents, programs, etc.), which goes beyond annotations and helps set expectations. No contradictions with 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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and parameters, the second lists the return fields. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return values by enumerating fields. It also explains the two input methods and their relationship to sanctions_screen. The context is complete enough for the tool's complexity, though it could mention error behavior or what happens when no entry matches.

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 parameters fully described. The description adds minimal extra value, such as clarifying the uid format comes from sanctions_screen results and that the two parameters are alternatives. This is a baseline 3 because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's function: retrieving the full Consolidated Screening List record for a single entry by uid or OFAC entity number. It distinguishes itself from the sibling sanctions_screen by specifying the input comes from sanctions_screen results and by emphasizing the full-record return. This is a specific verb+resource+scope with clear 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 implies usage context: use this after sanctions_screen to get full details for a specific entry. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the relationship to sanctions_screen is clear and the input options are described. This meets 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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