eu_sanctions_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and it discloses only the data source, not behaviour: it is silent on whether multiple filters are ANDed or ORed, how many results come back by default, or what happens when a lookup key is unknown. The undisclosed result cap (limit default 20, max 100) and nil-result handling are exactly the details an agent needs before calling a compliance lookup.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then packs the key formats inline as parenthetical examples. Nothing is wasted and the important content leads.

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 six-parameter compliance lookup with zero schema descriptions, no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much open: filter composition semantics, default/limit behaviour, and result shape are all unaddressed. It covers the 'what' adequately but not the 'how it behaves'.

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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it names five of the six concepts and even supplies format examples (EU.27.28 for reference number; RUS, IRQ, IRN for programme; ISO-2 for country). It never mentions the `limit` parameter nor explains that all filters are optional or how they combine.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') plus a precise resource ('sanctioned entities in the official EU Consolidated Financial Sanctions List') and enumerates the lookup keys, which is far more informative than the tool name alone. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools eu_sanctions_screen and eu_sanctions_list_info, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Listing the accepted key types (EU reference number, logical ID, programme, subject type, ISO-2 country) implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to eu_sanctions_screen or eu_sanctions_list_info. Usage remains inferable rather than stated.

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