search_sponsors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behaviors beyond that: results are approximate ('fuzzy') and ordered by closeness ('best first'). It says nothing about how many are returned by default or what happens on no match.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and result ordering stated first and no filler. Efficient, though very terse for the amount of undocumented surface area.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the readOnly annotation covers safety. However, with two undocumented parameters and no guidance on query format or limit behavior, the definition is only minimally complete 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It implies the 'query' is matched fuzzily against the register but never states what the query string represents (name, registration number, etc.), nor does it mention the 'limit' parameter or the default of 5.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Fuzzy-search the register' returns 'the closest organisations, best first.' An agent can distinguish this approximate-match search from the 'check_*' siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, but the verb and scope are 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?

The word 'fuzzy' hints that this is for approximate matching, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to the alternatives (check_sponsor, register_info). The agent is left to infer that an exact-lookup sibling should be preferred when a precise identifier is known.

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