get_sponsor_information

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses a cost of 2 credits, which is valuable behavioral info. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any side effects, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 sentence that effectively front-loads the purpose and lists all returned fields, plus a cost note. Every piece earns its place with no wasted words.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately lists all returned fields and cost. It lacks mention of error handling or edge cases (e.g., brand not found), but is otherwise complete for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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% (brandId description provided). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Get a single brand's full profile' and enumerates specific fields like name, alias[], logo, etc. This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from siblings such as get_sponsor_summary (presumably less detail) and list_sponsors (multiple brands).

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 implies usage for detailed brand profile retrieval but does not explicitly guide when to use this versus alternatives like get_sponsor_summary or search_sponsors. No when-not-to-use or alternative mention is provided.

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