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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: list coverage, handling of trading names and aliases, and a cost of 3 credits. It still omits result semantics such as match/no-match behavior and how minScore affects output.

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: purpose and list scope are front-loaded, followed by use cases and cost. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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 four-parameter sanctions tool with no output schema and many overlapping siblings, the description leaves important invocation details implicit. It does not clarify whether all four lists are queried together, what country filters on, what limit controls, or what minScore means.

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. The description clarifies that the name input can include trading names and aliases, but it does not explain the meaning of country, limit, or minScore beyond the schema's terse type/range notes.

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 ('Check') and resource ('COMPANY or organisation') and enumerates the sanctions lists, so the agent can identify it as company sanctions screening. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling single-list tools such as ofac_check, uk_sanctions_check, eu_sanctions_check, or from sanctions_check_person.

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?

Provides useful context with 'supplier and customer due diligence and approving payments to businesses', which implies when to use it. However, it gives no when-not guidance, prerequisites, or instruction on choosing between this and the many overlapping sanctions-check siblings.

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