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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses the access requirement (Pro plan), the ordering rule ('highest tier first'), the pagination ceiling (20 per page, up to 200), and the data-freshness semantics (as_of, refreshed at full publish). These are real behavioral traits an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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?

Compact and mostly front-loaded, with the plan requirement and the expected return shape stated up front. The mid-sentence colon list and the trailing id-sourcing clause are slightly dense but each carries information.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how results are paged, how they are ordered, how fresh the data is, and the entitlement needed. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already documents '1-based page, 20 rows each' and 'Edition uuid from get_event'; the description largely repeats that (20 per page, id from get_event). It adds only the ordering hint, so the 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?

Names a specific verb and resource (sponsors of one edition) and enumerates the returned fields (company, public tier label, HQ country and url), so it is clearly not the generic organizer/exhibitor listing. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling list_edition_exhibitors, which is the only gap.

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?

States a prerequisite ('Requires a Pro plan') and tells the agent where to source the required id ('Takes an edition id from get_event'), which is a concrete routing cue. No when-not-to-use guidance or comparison against the other edition-scoped listing is given.

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