sanctions_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it enumerates the exact return fields, states it never returns an entry, notes screening is against *local* lists, and publishes a rate limit of 10 per caller per UTC day — all things annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose and the free/preview constraint are front-loaded, and the return-field list and rate limit follow in descending order of importance. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return burden and does so by naming the four fields returned. What remains unexplained is the semantics of the fields (e.g. what list_note contains) and what an agent should do on a positive possible_match; these gaps are minor for a preview 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (name, country) are already documented, including the important note that country only orders matches and never excludes one. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (yes/no preview) and resource (local OFAC SDN, EU and UN sanction lists), and the phrase 'never an entry' signals it differs from a full screening tool. It is clear without opening the schema, but it never names the sibling sanctions_screen or wallet_sanctions_preview, so the differentiation remains implicit rather than explicit.

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 'Free yes/no preview' framing plus the 10/caller/day cap implies this is the cheap first-pass check and that a heavier tool is needed for actual entries, but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is stated. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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