List covered sanctions lists (free)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/no-open-world, and the description still adds non-obvious behavior: no network calls, static local catalog, instant, no rate limits, and explicitly what it does NOT do (no list downloads, no freshness reporting). It also flags the operational obligation to show the disclaimer alongside screening results, which no structured field conveys.

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?

Labeled sections (WHAT/WHEN/WHEN NOT/COST/RETURNS/BEHAVIOR/PARAMETERS/EXAMPLE) front-load the routing decision and cost before details. Every line carries distinct information; there is no filler despite the length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and the sample response plus the note that output feeds sanctions_screen_names completes the picture. Cost, offline behavior, and unsupported capabilities are all covered for this trivial zero-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?

Zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to clarify and the baseline is 4. The description usefully states the call convention (empty object {}, static, unfilterable) and even ties sources[].id values to the sibling's lists parameter, which is bonus semantic linkage rather than input documentation.

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?

Names a specific resource (the static catalog of official sanctions lists filtered by sanctions_screen_names) and its fields (id, name, authority, download URL), plus the score scale and disclaimer. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling sanctions_screen_names, which is the paid screener this list serves.

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?

Explicit WHEN (choose the lists parameter, cite sources, explain coverage before paying) and WHEN NOT (to screen a name, use sanctions_screen_names, paid), naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. Nothing is left to inference.

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