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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns compact results with specific fields, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (though implied by page/limit params), rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately following with guidance on an alternative. Every word is necessary and there is no clutter.

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 the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a clear overview of the tool's purpose and output. It mentions the sibling tool for further detail. However, it could be more complete by noting pagination or sorting behavior, but these are covered in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the searchable fields (name, description, industry tags, filters) and indicating the returned fields. However, it does not explain all 11 parameters individually, and the schema already provides good descriptions. The description's mention of 'filters' is vague and does not fully compensate for the lack of detailed parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 it searches sponsors by name, description, industry tags, or filters, and specifies that it returns compact results with a list of fields. It distinguishes itself from the sibling sponsor_get by noting that sponsor_get provides full detail.

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 tells the user to use sponsor_get for full detail on a specific sponsor, providing clear guidance on when to use an alternative. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with other search/similar tools.

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