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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior. The description adds useful cost information (3 credits), but it does not explain match scoring, result interpretation, or how limit and minScore affect behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and identifiers. Every element, including the cost note, earns its place.

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 three-parameter read-only sanctions check, the description supplies the key context: covered jurisdictions, identifier forms, use cases, and cost. It remains slightly incomplete around minScore/limit behavior and result interpretation, but the annotations and schema cover much of the rest.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds meaning by saying name can be a vessel name, former name, or 7-digit IMO number, but it does not clarify limit or minScore beyond their schema ranges.

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 uses a specific verb/resource combination: checking whether a ship or vessel is sanctioned. It names the jurisdictions covered and the identifier forms, making it clearly distinguishable from person/company sanctions siblings.

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?

It explicitly lists suitable contexts: shipping, chartering, freight and maritime insurance checks. It does not name alternatives such as sanctions_check_company or sanctions_check_person, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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