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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations: the call costs 3 credits. It says nothing about matching behavior, false-positive handling, or whether a 'no match' result is authoritative.

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 short sentences: the scope and covered regimes are front-loaded and the cost tag is appended compactly. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 and only formal (non-informative) parameter descriptions, the definition leaves the agent guessing at return shape and match semantics (scores, thresholds, pagination via limit). It is adequate to trigger the call correctly, but not to interpret or tune 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but those schema descriptions are nearly vacuous ('string, optional', 'number 1-100', 'person|entity|any'). The description adds no meaning beyond them, notably omitting what minScore controls (fuzzy-match threshold) and how name/dob/country combine to produce a match.

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 resource ('UN Security Council consolidated sanctions list'), and enumerates the covered regimes (ISIL/Al-Qaida, Taliban, DPRK, Iran-related), which naturally separates it from siblings like eu_sanctions_check, uk_sanctions_check and ofac_check. It does not, however, clarify how it relates to overlapping generic siblings such as sanctions_screen or sanctions_check_person, leaving the jurisdictional routing implicit.

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 resource named: an agent can infer this is a UN-list screening call. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over eu_sanctions_check/uk_sanctions_check/ofac_check, nor whether it should be combined with them for full coverage, and no statement about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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