fuzzy_search_global_sanctions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the fuzzy matching nature and 'Cost: 200 credits,' but does not mention read-only status, permissions, or potential side effects. For a search tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 stated clearly in the first sentence, followed by a well-structured Args section and a cost note. No redundant or unnecessary information; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, parameters, and cost, but lacks explicit alternative guidance. It is sufficient for a search tool with these structured inputs.

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 0%, so the description compensates fully. It explains q with an example ('Kesklinna') and dataset with the complete list of allowed values and default, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 clearly states the tool performs 'fuzzy text matching across international sanctions databases' with 'broader and more comprehensive coverage.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_global_sanctions (likely exact) and fuzzy_search_ofac (OFAC-specific).

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?

The phrase 'broader and more comprehensive coverage' implies use when a broader fuzzy match is needed, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use. It offers clear context without exclusions.

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