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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by noting the result includes a live linked venue's mcp_endpoint and linked_venue_slug, which helps the agent understand the output's behavioral significance without contradicting the 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the most important output details. There is no redundant wording or repetition of schema content.

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?

The output schema exists, so return value explanation is not required. The description covers the purpose, the key linked-venue data, and downstream usage with venue_* tools. The only minor gap is the title/description discrepancy around 'by name' versus 'by id,' which could confuse selection.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the 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 fetches one listing's full detail by id and mentions the linked venue data it returns. However, the title says 'by name' while the description and schema require a listing_id, creating a mild inconsistency, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling destination_listings.

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 explains how the returned mcp_endpoint and linked_venue_slug can be used with the venue_* tools to read or book the venue. This gives useful downstream context, though it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over destination_listings or other destination tools.

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