list_sponsors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states that the tool returns 'commonly seen sponsors' and allows filtering, but does not disclose additional details like result set size, ordering, or whether it is a read-only operation. For a simple list tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word serves a clear function.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the main functionality and usage context. It lacks details about the return format or any side effects, but these are not critical for this simple lookup tool.

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 already describes the 'query' parameter as 'Filter sponsors by name' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds that filtering is optional ('optionally filtered by name'), which duplicates schema info. No additional semantics are provided beyond what the schema offers.

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 specifies the verb 'returns', the resource 'commonly seen sponsors', and the optional filtering by name. It also explains the purpose of these names (used with the `sponsors` search filter), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_professions.

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 implies when to use this tool (to get sponsor names for the sponsors filter) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools. The context is clear enough for selection among siblings.

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