get_sponsor_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses that Instagram spend/CPM/CPE always return null and that the tool costs 25 credits, providing valuable behavioral traits beyond what annotations would typically cover.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, but the second sentence is a long, dense list of nested fields, which could be more readable. It earns its place but is not optimally structured.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value structure. However, it omits error handling, prerequisites (e.g., brand existence), or rate limits beyond the single cost warning. Still, for a simple one-parameter tool, it is fairly complete.

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% for the single parameter, and the description adds no additional semantics for brandId beyond the schema's example. The detailed output structure indirectly helps, but per the guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 'Cross-platform sponsorship rollup for a brand', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_sponsor_creators or get_sponsor_performance by emphasizing the rollup nature across platforms and providing detailed output structure.

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 notes that the tool is expensive (costs 25 credits), implying it should be used judiciously. However, it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., use get_sponsor_creators for detailed creator lists), so it lacks exclusion guidance.

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