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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions it is a one-call dossier and includes pricing, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive. For a data retrieval tool, this is adequate but could be more explicit about safety.

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 paragraph that efficiently lists the data points included. It is front-loaded with the key question 'What is this employer's full visa-sponsorship track record?' and is appropriately sized without extraneous 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?

Given the simple single-parameter input, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers input format, the range of data returned, and pricing, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description adds meaning by explaining the input can be a slug or raw name, is punctuation-insensitive, and includes an example. This goes beyond the schema description, providing useful context for parameter usage.

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 provides a comprehensive dossier on an employer's visa sponsorship track record, including specific data points like LCA/PERM counts, wage percentiles, and top occupations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like oflc_sponsor_search by offering detailed records rather than just a list.

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 explains the tool is for getting a full sponsorship track record and accepts a slug or name. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with siblings, the context of sibling tools (e.g., oflc_sponsor_search) implies this is the deep-dive tool. Usage guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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