submit_sponsor

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: cost implications (1 credit on acceptance, 0 on duplicate/rejection) and rate limits (100/day per API key). It also details the return values and statuses. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 the core purpose and return values, then adds cost and rate-limit details. Every sentence adds unique value with no 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?

With no output schema, the description provides essential return fields. It covers cost and rate limits. It could mention error handling or validation of inputs but is sufficient for a submission 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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the return values. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Submit a brand for indexing') and the resource (brand). It specifies the return values, and the sibling tools are all read-only queries, so this tool's distinct purpose is evident.

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 indexing new brands, and the sibling tools are all get/list/search operations, making the contextual choice clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to alternatives.

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