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 valuable context beyond these: the return format (alias type with aka/fka/nka meanings), a concrete example (entity 36 → AERO-CARIBBEAN), and data source provenance. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds return format, workflow guidance, and an illustrative example. Every sentence contributes meaning—the screening rationale and data source are brief but useful. No redundant filler or repetition of annotations.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with a documented schema, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers what an agent needs: how to get the parameter, what the response contains, an example, and the domain rationale. Nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema's parameter description already explains ent_num and directs the agent to obtain it from ofac.sdn.search results. The description reinforces this with an example but adds little beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'Get all known aliases (alternate names) for a specific OFAC SDN entity by its entity number.' It clearly defines the input (entity number), the output (aliases with type), and distinguishes itself from the sibling ofac.sdn.search by instructing the agent to use that tool first to obtain ent_num.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use ofac.sdn.search first to find the entity number (ent_num) for the entity you are screening,' which both provides the prerequisite workflow and names the alternative tool. It also explains why the tool matters for sanctions screening, giving clear context for when it is appropriate.

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