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.