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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond them: case-insensitive substring matching, guidance to search by distinctive name parts, public domain data source, business-day updates, and no API key requirement.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: purpose and return fields come first, followed by filters, use cases, matching semantics, related tool, and data source/auth context. Every sentence adds useful information 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?

Given the rich schema, annotations, and output schema, this description covers everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly: data source, return fields, filters, matching behavior, related metadata tool, update frequency, and auth requirements.

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%, and the property descriptions already document the substring match, type enum semantics, default/max limit, and program code examples. The tool description largely restates what the schema provides rather than adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 verb and resource: "Search the US Treasury OFAC Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) list by name." It also distinguishes this tool from related siblings like ofac.meta.programs and ofac.sdn.aliases by describing its primary purpose and output fields.

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 gives explicit use-case guidance (AML/KYC compliance screening, sanctions risk assessment, due diligence), explains the substring search behavior, and points users to ofac.meta.programs for program codes. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer ofac.sdn.aliases over this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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