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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-schema information: the exact list coverage (SDN plus Consolidated non-SDN) and a cost of 3 credits. It does not describe result behavior (match scores, false positives, pagination), leaving some behavioral ground uncovered.

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 plus a parenthetical cost, front-loaded with the resource before the use cases. Very little waste, though 'any OFAC compliance check' is a slightly vague catch-all that adds less than the cost note.

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 6-parameter screening tool with no output schema, the description is adequate on identity and cost but thin on results: nothing about what a hit looks like, how minScore filters matches, or whether results are ranked. An agent can call it correctly but cannot anticipate the response shape.

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 carries the parameter documentation and 3 is the baseline. The description only loosely maps 'person, company or ship' onto the type parameter and says nothing about minScore thresholds, dob matching, or limit behavior that the schema names but does not explain.

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 and resource ('Search the US Treasury OFAC sanctions lists (SDN and Consolidated non-SDN)') and the covered subject types (person, company, ship), which implicitly separates it from the EU/UK/UN sanctions siblings. It never explicitly names those alternatives, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use triggers ('US-dollar payments, US counterparties and any OFAC compliance check'), which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of when-not-to-use guidance, e.g. deferring to eu_sanctions_check or un_sanctions_check for non-US exposure, or explaining when sanctions_screen is the better entry point.

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