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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the score counts shared features and 'is not a probability' (guarding against misreading it as risk), and every result links to the authority's own published action, establishing an evidence standard.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the qualification rule and the score caveat. Every sentence carries distinct payload (source list, matching rule, return format, score caveat) with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully specifies the return shape (shared features plus a link to the published action) and the score's meaning. The qualification rule and the client-quoting caveat are also covered. Remaining gaps — parameter-level meaning, result limits, ordering — are minor.

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 coverage is only 60% (transit and destination lack descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does explain the semantics that tie the parameters together — commodity/behaviour paired with destination/route — which is real meaning beyond the schema, though it still leaves transit and red_flag's individual roles implicit.

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 precise verb+resource: retrieving published enforcement actions (naming four specific authority types) that share features with a described shipment. No sibling tool covers this ground, and the parenthetical authority list makes the scope unmistakable.

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 by defining the matching rule ('shares the commodity or the behaviour AND the destination or route'), which tells an agent what inputs matter. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus siblings like get_early_warning, get_country_risk, or check_commodity_controls, and offers no exclusions.

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