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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the return contract (allow/review/block action, 0-100 risk score, matches with list and official reference, list copy dates) and an operational constraint: free but subject to a shared daily quota.

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-loaded with the core action and sources, then usage, scope limits, input format, and quota. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the country format is repeated from the schema and the list enumeration is long.

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 carries the full burden of describing results, and it does so (action, risk score, per-match list and reference, list copy dates). Combined with quota, scope limits, and interpretation guidance for 'review', an agent has everything needed to call and act on it.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates name and optional country in ISO 3166 alpha-2 form, adding no format or behavior detail the schema does not already contain, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Screen a company name against official sanctions lists" gives a specific verb and resource, and the description enumerates the exact sources (US CSL incl. OFAC SDN and Entity List, UK, EU, Canada). The scope limit "Companies only, not individuals" further distinguishes it from any person-screening sibling.

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?

States the triggering situation explicitly ("when the user asks whether a company, supplier, customer or counterparty is sanctioned before doing business with it") and an explicit exclusion (companies only, not individuals). It also tells the agent how to interpret a 'review' outcome, which is the main ambiguity in acting on results.

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