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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: without a linked account, only public sponsors resolve with limited data (no company details, contact section). This goes beyond annotations.

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, each earning its place. The first sentence states purpose and contents; the second explains the constraint. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action and resource.

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 single-sponsor retrieval tool with an output schema (not shown), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what it returns, and under what conditions. Annotations provide safety profile. No gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single parameter 'domain'. The description adds a concrete example ('e.g. athleticgreens.com') and clarifies that the domain is the addressing mechanism, enhancing understanding beyond the schema's generic description.

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 provides a full profile for one sponsor addressed by domain, listing included fields (description, industry, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_sponsors by specifying that it targets a single sponsor by domain.

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 explicitly mentions that the tool is addressed by domain and describes behavior differences based on linked account status. While it does not explicitly exclude other use cases, the context and sibling tools imply appropriate usage.

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