List sponsors on the Commertize marketplace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: it clarifies that only offerings with public listings appear, that target raise is summed only over offerings that disclose one, and that every response names unavailable data fields.

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?

Front-loads the returned fields before the caveats, which is the right ordering. It is a dense single block and the final 'not an offer, solicitation, or recommendation' clause is boilerplate, but overall it is efficiently packed.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shape, and it instead supplies the interpretive framing an agent needs: what constitutes a sponsor here, which aggregates are conditional, and which data classes are absent platform-wide.

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 schema carries nothing to misinterpret and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there is no filtering input, describing the response scope instead.

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+resource ('Every sponsor with a public offering on Commertize') and enumerates exactly what each row contains (offering count, status/asset-class breakdown, states, summed target raise). An agent can distinguish this list-of-sponsors tool from siblings like get_sponsor and list_offerings without opening the schema.

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?

Strong scoping about what the dataset covers and explicitly rules out track-record attributes (prior-deal, realized return, AUM, principal). However, it never routes the agent between this and get_sponsor for a single sponsor or list_offerings, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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