get_top_sponsors_by_state

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it counts only petitions from offices in the given state (local figures, not company-wide), and covers fiscal years 2024-2026. This adds critical context beyond what the schema provides.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral nuances, then clear arg explanations. Every sentence is informative and no fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, output schema present), the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, its behavioral scope, and parameter details. The agent has sufficient information to use the tool 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the state parameter with examples of USPS codes and territories, and the limit parameter with the allowed range (1-50). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 ranks the largest H-1B sponsors in a US state by approved petitions, with specific verb (rank) and resource (sponsors by state), distinguishing it from the sibling tool search_sponsors which likely searches sponsors without state-specific ranking.

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 provides clear context that the tool is for state-specific rankings counting local petitions, implicitly differentiating from search_sponsors which would cover broader searches. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling, and does not state any prerequisites or when not to use it.

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