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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a free-sample quota followed by per-call metered payment via x402. That is exactly the kind of operational constraint annotations cannot express. Return-shape detail is partly redundant since an output schema exists.

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 compact sentences with no waste. The payload summary is front-loaded and the cost/quota note is relegated to second position, which is the right priority ordering.

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 an output schema present, the description need not re-explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. Parameters are fully documented in the schema. What is complete enough to call correctly; the only minor gap is that the screen-then-entry workflow remains implicit rather than stated.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the enum-like values for 'list' and the cross-reference hint that list_id/entry_id come from a screen result. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Full record for a matched entry') and enumerates exactly what the record returns: aliases, programmes, countries, dates of birth, remarks. This clearly separates it from the search-oriented siblings like sanctions__screen, which return matches rather than full detail.

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 itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the drill-down workflow is only implied by the schema notes ('list_id in a screen result'). The only genuine usage framing is the pricing model (free samples then $0.005/call), which is useful but is cost guidance rather than selection guidance.

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