List OFAC Sanctions Programs

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: the data source (US Treasury), update frequency (business days), and that the response includes entity counts. It also clarifies that the response is in English via the locale parameter note. The claim of 'complete list' is reasonable and does not contradict the openWorldHint annotation since the set of OFAC programs is a well-defined static list. It does not discuss any side effects or edge cases, but given the safety annotations, the added context is sufficient.

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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose and output, the second gives concrete examples of program codes, and the third provides usage guidance and data provenance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no redundant wording.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return format. It covers the tool's purpose, the nature of the data (entity counts), how to use the output with a sibling tool, data source, update cadence, and the triviality of the parameter. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and understand the result.

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?

The only parameter, 'locale', is fully described in the schema as a no-op, and the description explicitly states 'No-op — included for consistency. Response is always in English as published by US Treasury.' Since schema coverage is 100% and the parameter is trivial, the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('complete list of active OFAC sanctions programs'), and the data returned (program codes with entity counts). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool by naming ofac.sdn.search and explaining the returned codes are to be used as a filter there, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool is for and how it fits with its siblings.

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 description gives a direct usage instruction: 'Use program codes returned here as the "program" filter in ofac.sdn.search.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (to obtain valid program codes for filtering). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know to use it for listing programs, not for searching entities. The lack of explicit exclusions is a minor gap.

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