Check Sponsorship Licence

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with a read operation. Description adds that the tool handles typos and partial names, and returns specific data fields (routes, ratings, etc.). No contradictions, and it provides context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then details about typo handling and return fields, and ends with a sibling alternative. Every sentence adds 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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly lists return fields (licence routes, ratings, locations, register dates). Parameter details are sufficient. Tool complexity is low, and the description fully covers what the agent needs to use it 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%, so schema already documents both parameters. Description redundantly repeats the 'typos OK' for company_name and explains country parameter briefly. Adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks if a company holds a UK or Netherlands work-visa sponsorship licence, specifies handling typos/partial names, and lists return fields. Distinguishes itself from sibling 'search_sponsors' by contrasting use cases.

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?

Explicitly says to use this for checking a single company and suggests 'search_sponsors' for exploring/filtering many companies. Lacks explicit when-not or exclusions, but the guidance is clear.

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