Search Sponsor Register

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

With annotations providing readOnlyHint=true, the description adds value by disclosing the output behavior: returns a 'compact list with a total count'. This goes beyond the annotation's safety info and gives the agent a clearer expectation of the tool's result shape, though it doesn't mention pagination or potential limitations.

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 exceptionally concise, with two sentences that front-load purpose, then mention output and an alternative. Every word adds value, with no repetition of schema or annotation details.

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 the tool's moderately complex parameter set (though all optional) and lack of output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, return shape, and an alternative. It could mention pagination or the meaning of 'compact list', but overall it sufficiently contextualizes the tool for correct invocation.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), including country-specific filters. The description reinforces the filter groupings but doesn't add substantial meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool performs an 'Exploratory list search of the sponsor register' with specific resources and optional filters. It also distinguishes from sibling tool check_sponsor_license by directing users to that tool for checking a specific company, making purpose and scope unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use this for exploratory list searches, and specifically prefer check_sponsor_license for verifying a single company. The description also notes country-specific filters (UK vs NL), helping the agent choose when to use it with appropriate parameters.

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