search_ofac

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact-match behavior and cost (10 credits), which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether fields are combined with AND/OR, whether at least one parameter is required, or the behavior when no filters are provided. These are meaningful gaps for a search tool with all-optional parameters.

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 description is front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by a compact parameter list and cost note. Every line serves a purpose; no filler or redundancy.

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 description covers purpose, parameters, and cost, and the output schema exists to explain return values. However, it omits guidance on how to combine multiple filters and whether an empty search is valid. Given the tool's complexity (9 optional parameters), this leaves some ambiguity around invocation patterns.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: type, name, first/last name, id, address, city, state, country. It even provides examples for type and id, adding real semantic value beyond the bare schema field names.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Search'), the resource ('OFAC sanctions database'), and the method ('exact field matching'), which distinguishes it from fuzzy siblings like fuzzy_search_ofac. It is specific and immediately understandable.

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 'exact field matching' gives clear context for when to use this tool over fuzzy alternatives, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling 'fuzzy_search_ofac' is implied as the contrasting choice, so usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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