Kann KI das? Sponsoring

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the important 'only after confirmation' constraint, but it does not disclose further side effects (e.g., payment flow or external Stripe interaction). With annotations, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the critical precondition. No filler or redundant content.

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 description is concise but sufficient for a simple create operation. It states the tool's purpose and necessary precondition. While it doesn't mention the return value, an output schema is present, and the annotations cover idempotency and safety profile.

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 detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action: 'Create a Stripe hosted checkout' with a resource and scope. It also adds the key precondition ('only after explicit buyer confirmation'), and it is easily distinguished from the sibling tool list_sponsor_slots.

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 provides explicit timing guidance ('only after explicit buyer confirmation') and specifies the confirmed details (slot, EUR 990 net price, 30-day term). It does not explicitly compare with the sibling tool, but the intent is clear enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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 destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by stating 'never reserves or purchases a slot,' clarifying the exact side-effect-free behavior beyond what annotations convey. There is no contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place. The first states the action, and the second clarifies the critical non-mutating nature. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It clarifies the tool's purpose and side-effect-free guarantee, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The sibling tool name further contextualizes its role.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what is being listed ('current availability'), which is semantically useful even though no parameters exist. Since there are no params, the description does not need to elaborate further.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'current availability,' clearly indicating this tool is for read-only checking of sponsor slots. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from purchasing/reserving actions by stating it never reserves or purchases a slot, differentiating it from the sibling create_sponsor_checkout.

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 states when not to use this tool: 'This tool never reserves or purchases a slot.' This tells the agent that for reservation or purchase, it should look to other tools like the sibling create_sponsor_checkout. The guidance is clear and directly informs tool selection.

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