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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: pricing (0.05 USDC via x402 or 25 credits), the free-first-5-calls-a-day policy, no-account requirement, and how alerts are delivered (webhook plus /v1/watch/alerts with the returned token). It also explains when re-screening fires (sanctions on list changes, company daily, apk daily).

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?

Front-loads the use case before mechanics, and every sentence carries real information (use condition, kinds, alert routing, pricing). It is a single dense block, which makes it slightly harder to scan than a structured breakdown would be.

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 paid, stateful monitoring tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: cost and free tier, auth path (api_key), what gets created, and how results arrive. No material gap remains.

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?

With 60% schema coverage, the description meaningfully enriches the kind enum by explaining what each value monitors and how often, and restates the value formats (COUNTRY:name or number, Dutch plate). It leaves label and api_key largely to the schema, which is acceptable since their descriptions already exist.

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 concrete verb+resource+scope: 'Watches one item for 30 days', and enumerates the three kinds with what each monitors. An agent can immediately tell this apart from the one-shot screening siblings like eu_sanctions_screen or nl_apk_alert.

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?

Gives an explicit use condition — 'the user wants to be told later or must show screening keeps running' — which cleanly separates ongoing monitoring from point-in-time lookups. It does not name a specific sibling to use instead for one-off screening, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives routing.

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