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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered elsewhere. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that responses carry `stale`/`available` flags about snapshot currency, which is not derivable from the annotations. It does not discuss match quality (exact vs fuzzy), which is the main behavioral unknown for a sanctions screening search.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, with the resource scope front-loaded and the return-shape information second. Every clause conveys information the agent cannot get from the name alone.

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 usefully characterizes the return payload (aliases, sanctions programs, identifying details, freshness flags), which is exactly what an agent needs. The remaining gap is match semantics and default result behavior, both left unstated.

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 67%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description corroborates name/alias searching and the four subject types, but it omits that `query` also accepts an exact ID number (stated only in the schema) and says nothing about `limit` beyond what the schema already declares.

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 specific verb (Search) and a precisely scoped resource (US Treasury OFAC SDN list), enumerating the covered subject types (individuals, entities, vessels, aircraft). The explicit 'OFAC'/'US Treasury' framing distinguishes it from the sibling eu_sanctions__search, uk_sanctions__search, and un_sanctions__search without the agent needing to inspect schemas.

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?

Usage is only implied by the jurisdiction named in the resource; there is no explicit 'use this when..., use X instead when...' guidance or stated prerequisites. An agent can infer it is the US-list sibling to the other sanctions searches, but the description never says so directly.

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