SponsorBoard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real context: the data is 'public' and the offers/promo codes are 'selected' and 'recorded', signalling a curated, possibly incomplete snapshot rather than the full commercial history. It stops short of describing response size, pagination, or auth requirements.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource being identified, with every clause earning its place by documenting a returned field group. It is slightly dense in its enumerated list but contains no filler.

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 no output schema, the description effectively serves as the return-value documentation and does so well, telling the agent the shape of the record before it calls. Combined with complete schema coverage and safety annotations, an agent has what it needs; only sibling routing is unaddressed in the description.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage (format example and a sibling pointer to search_sponsors), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about the domain parameter or its matching behavior, which is the expected baseline 3 when schema coverage is complete.

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 names a specific resource — one company's public sponsorship record — and enumerates exactly what that record contains (shows with first/last dates, trade boards, offers, promo codes). This is far more concrete than a restatement of the title, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_trade_board, list_trades, or search_sponsors, so it falls short of a 5.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. A weak implication exists that it requires a known company domain, and the schema's parameter text carries the fallback hint ("Use search_sponsors if unsure"), but the description itself contributes nothing on routing.

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

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context about what data is returned and that free boards only show a sample of names, which is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it does not cover auth, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then lists the returned data. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool, with each clause contributing to the expected output.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so well: names, show counts, run length, last date, shows, and sampling on free boards. For a simple read-only tool with one fully documented parameter, this is nearly complete, missing only edge-case behavior.

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%, and the single trade parameter is fully documented with an enum and the note that the key comes from list_trades. The description implies a trade board is selected but adds no further parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource and return contents: sponsor names for one trade board, show counts, longest observed run, last observed date, and the board's shows. It is distinguishable from get_sponsor and search_sponsors by its board-level scope, but it does not explicitly name siblings or distinguish itself from list_trades.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The only usage-adjacent statement is the caveat that free boards show a sample of names; it does not tell the agent when to choose this over search_sponsors or get_sponsor.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing what the listing returns: each board's key plus aggregate counts of ad-buying companies and public names, which is unusual in a tool with no output schema.

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?

A single sentence with the action and return contents front-loaded, followed by a short chaining instruction. No filler; every clause conveys actionable 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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing results, and it does so adequately by naming the returned fields and the downstream use of the key. It stops short of noting whether the list is paginated or how large it may be.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments exist by describing a flat 'list every board' operation, and it hints the returned key is the input for get_trade_board.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every trade board') and enumerates the fields returned (key, count of companies buying ads, count of public names). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_trade_board by explaining that the list supplies the key the getter consumes.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: enumerate here first, then 'Use a key with get_trade_board' for detail. This is a clear usage pattern, though it does not state any exclusion conditions (e.g., when to prefer search_sponsors or get_sponsor instead).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are capped at 10 matches and each match carries its domain, which tells the agent how to paginate/limit expectations. No auth or rate-limit detail, so not a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose and input formats first, return shape and next-step routing second. No filler or restated name/title.

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 no output schema, the description does carry the return-value burden and discharges it reasonably ('up to 10 matches with their domains'). It omits edge behavior such as no-match results or result ranking, which would be needed for a 5.

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 defines query as 'Company name or domain, at least 2 characters.' The description goes slightly beyond it by exemplifying both accepted forms ('squarespace' for name, 'stayfi.com' for domain), which is the only added meaning available for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Specific verb (Find) plus a precisely scoped resource (companies with a public sponsorship page) and concrete input examples. It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling get_sponsor by describing lookup-by-query rather than detail-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 states the search context (by domain or name) and routes the agent onward: 'pass a domain to get_sponsor.' That is clear use guidance with a named follow-up, though no explicit when-not-to-use or disambiguation from list_trades/get_trade_board is given.

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