List covered sanctions sources (free)

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), and the description adds context beyond them: free, local, no network, no APIFY_TOKEN, does not download lists, and that the sibling screen_names is paid per name. These cost and execution-locality details materially affect when and how an agent calls it.

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 TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, COST, RETURNS, PARAMETERS, EXAMPLE) front-load the purpose and the routing decision. The longer length is earned by information density, and the concrete example call clarifies the practical handoff to screen_names.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need no full explanation, yet the description still summarizes sources[].id and score_scale for practical use. Cost, locality, usage boundaries, and the screen_names handoff cover everything an agent needs to call this zero-param tool correctly.

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-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4; the schema is empty and fully self-documenting. The description explicitly states 'PARAMETERS: None; the result is static and cannot be filtered,' which usefully prevents wasted attempts to filter, though there is little parameter meaning left to add.

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: a static list of the official sanctions lists that screen_names checks, including id, name, issuing authority, download URL, score scale, and disclaimer. It also names the siblings screen_names and list_cache_status, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 TO USE (choosing the lists parameter, citing sources, explaining coverage) and WHEN NOT TO USE (screening a name -> screen_names; cache freshness -> list_cache_status; does not download lists). It routes the agent to the correct alternative for each adjacent need with no inference required.

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