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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose that this is an HTTP GET, costs $0.01 per call in USDC on Base, and uses x402 payment in params._meta["x402/payment"]. It does not describe response format, pagination, rate limits, error handling, or unpaid-call 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by compact details on scope, price, payment mechanism, and endpoint. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no redundant wording.

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 paid search endpoint with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers scope and payment mechanics but omits parameter meanings and return or pagination behavior. It is partly self-contained but not fully complete for correct invocation.

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 0% and there are two parameters. The description only implies that q is a search query through 'search the entity index' and never explains the limit parameter, query syntax, or expected values, so it does not compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 states a specific resource and scope: sanctions data for organisations only (companies, vessels, aircraft), searching the entity index, with no personal data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as check_sanctions__address and check_sanctions__screen by explicitly excluding personal data.

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 gives clear scope and an implicit exclusion: entities only, no personal data, which signals when to avoid this tool for individuals. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like check_sanctions__address or state when to prefer other siblings.

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