Look up an SDN entry

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), so the description's value is in disclosing the payload — it enumerates exactly which record fields come back, which matters since there is no output schema. The word "published" usefully signals this is the official published snapshot rather than live data. It does not say what happens on an unknown entryId, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the return contents lead, and the single usage cue follows. Nothing is repeated unnecessarily and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, payload, and trigger well. The only meaningful omission is failure behavior for a nonexistent or malformed entry number, which an agent would want to know before calling.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as the SDN entry number (ent_num) from screening results. The description restates but adds no format, range, or error semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Returns the full published record of one OFAC SDN entry") and scopes it by key ("by its entry number"). The field enumeration (names, aliases, type, programs, DOBs, addresses, remarks) makes it unmistakably distinct from the screening siblings screen_name/screen_names and from compare_names.

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?

"Use it to review a potential match" gives a clear workflow context: call this after a screening result surfaces a candidate entry. It does not explicitly name the alternatives (e.g. "to search by name use screen_name") or state what to do if no entry exists, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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