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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing credit-based billing, permanent organizational unlock, repeat-view idempotency, locked-result behavior, and differences based on linked-account status. These are material behavioral traits not visible from the schema, and they align with the idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false 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 packed with necessary operational details but remains readable and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes: what the profile contains, unlinked-account limits, credit behavior, and the locked-result edge case.

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?

The tool is complete for an agent to invoke correctly: it explains input semantics, account-dependent behavior, credit side effects, locked responses, and warns about repeated costly calls. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, and it even references locked_note for the edge case.

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%, with the single domain parameter fully documented including an example and length constraints. The description adds only that the profile is 'addressed by domain,' which restates the parameter's purpose rather than adding new semantic detail.

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 tool returns a full profile for exactly one sponsor, addressed by domain, and enumerates the profile contents. This distinguishes it from broader search tools like search_sponsors and find_sponsors_for_show because it is explicitly singular and keyed 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 makes clear this is the tool for retrieving a complete sponsor dossier by domain and includes an important warning about credit charges before opening many sponsors. It does not explicitly name when to prefer search_sponsors or other siblings, but the context implies when this direct lookup is appropriate.

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