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 real value with the credit cost and the returned fields (EU programme, listing date), but says nothing about match behaviour, fuzzy vs exact name matching, or how minScore affects results.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the resource and scope come first and cost is appended last. The middle fragment 'For EU counterparties and EU trade' is slightly telegraphic but earns its place as usage context.

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 covers purpose, return fields and cost but omits match semantics, result ordering, and how to combine name/dob/country for reliable screening. Adequate but leaves an agent guessing on invocation details.

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 baseline is 3. However the schema descriptions are placeholder-quality ('string, optional', 'number 1-100'), and the description does not explain dob matching, the type enum values, or what minScore thresholds mean in practice.

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 EU consolidated financial sanctions list for a person or organisation'. The EU qualifier implicitly separates it from ofac_check, uk_sanctions_check and un_sanctions_check, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'For EU counterparties and EU trade' gives a positive usage context, but there is no when-not guidance and no explicit routing to the sibling sanctions tools (uk_sanctions_check, un_sanctions_check, sanctions_screen) for other jurisdictions.

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