Search Sponsor Register

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds specifics: it returns a compact list with a total count and that filters apply per country. No contradictions. Adds useful behavior 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then alternative guidance. Every sentence is valuable 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?

Covers core behavior, country-specific filters, and output summary. However, it does not mention pagination or behavior of the limit parameter, which is present in the schema. Still, it is largely complete for an exploratory search tool with read-only annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds grouping of filters by country (city/route for UK, sponsor type for NL) and states they are optional, which adds slight value beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 it performs an exploratory list search of the sponsor register, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool check_sponsor_license by recommending the latter for checking one specific company.

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 tells the agent to prefer check_sponsor_license for single-company checks, and notes that filters are optional and country-specific. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but provides clear context.

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