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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds useful operational context: data source (US Treasury OFAC), public domain status, no auth required, and the update schedule. It also discloses the SHA-256 digest field, which implies integrity verification. This adds value beyond 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 three sentences: the first gives the purpose and key outputs, the second gives a concrete use case, and the third covers update frequency and data source. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only metadata tool with zero required parameters and an output schema, the description covers all essentials: what it returns, when to use it, and the source. The update frequency and lack of auth requirements are helpful. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The only parameter `locale` is fully described in the schema as a no-op, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't mention the parameter, but the schema already handles it completely.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('publication metadata for the OFAC SDN list'), and names key outputs (last modification date and SHA-256 digest). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ofac.meta.programs and ofac.sdn.search, which cover other aspects of the OFAC dataset.

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?

It explicitly gives a use case: 'check when the list was last updated before running compliance screening'. It also notes the update frequency (US business days), which helps the agent decide when to call it. While it doesn't name alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for this simple tool.

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