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 is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context in the credit cost (3 credits) and the note that DOB/nationality improve match confidence, hinting at fuzzy matching. It says nothing about what a result payload contains (match/no-match, scores) or how false positives are reported, which matters for a screening tool.

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 sentences: capability first, refinement advice second, use cases third, with cost in parentheses. Every sentence carries distinct information and the most important fact is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description should ideally say what comes back and how minScore/limit govern results. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how to sharpen a match, and annotations cover safety, but the result shape and the two numeric controls remain unexplained for a 5-parameter tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning for dob and country by explaining they are match-confidence inputs rather than filters. However, limit and minScore are never explained anywhere beyond bare type/range notes, and minScore is the parameter most likely to change results materially — that gap keeps it at baseline.

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 ('Check whether a named PERSON is on the UK, US (OFAC), EU or UN sanctions lists') and explicitly enumerates the four list sources, which distinguishes it from the single-jurisdiction siblings (ofac_check, eu_sanctions_check, uk_sanctions_check, un_sanctions_check) and from the entity-type siblings (sanctions_check_company, sanctions_check_ship). The capitalized PERSON makes the entity scope unambiguous.

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 framing: onboarding a customer, vetting a director or shareholder, approving a payment to an individual. It also advises adding DOB/nationality to firm up or rule out a match. It never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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