Get Sponsor Details

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by listing exactly what fields are returned and noting country-specific differences (UK vs NL) and the optional history flag. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Full record for one organization by id') then appends specifics, making it easy to parse and remember.

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?

For a read-only detail retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, key data fields, and country-specific behavior. It does not discuss error handling or pagination, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds value by explicitly linking the country parameter to the different data returned (routes/ratings vs sponsor type/KvK) and reinforcing the include_history parameter's purpose. This enriches the parameter meanings beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Full record for one organization by id', clearly specifying the resource (sponsor record) and the action (retrieve). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_sponsors by emphasizing lookup by id and enumerating specific content (routes, ratings, locations, register dates, sponsor type, KvK number).

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 phrase 'by id' implies this is for retrieving details when an org_id is already known, and the country parameter clarifies which register to query. 'Optionally include register change history' gives a usage hint. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some inference needed.

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