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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds real value beyond them: the base view is always returned, include opts into heavier reads, items come back in requested order, duplicate slugs fraction resolved once, and not_found lists unresolved slugs. These behavioral guarantees materially affect how an agent interprets results, and none contradict 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then packs scoping, invocation and semantics into subsequent clauses with no wasted words. It is one long, dense sentence—splitting it would aid readability—but every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description only needs to cover behavior and selection logic, which it does thoroughly: base vs. include views, ordering, dedup, unresolved-slug reporting, and the use case. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds beyond the schema: it documents the ordering guarantee, that unresolved duplicates resolve once, and the not_found listing behavior. These are parameter-level semantics (for slugs and include) not present in the schema, raising the score above baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Get several published venues' summaries in ONE call by their slugs' — and explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_venue by framing it as 'the batch counterpart.' An agent can immediately distinguish this from search_venues and venue_profile without opening schemas.

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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: 'a shortlist from search_venues needs no per-slug round-trip,' naming the alternative (get_venue) and the driving scenario. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g., for a single venue or for venue-specific menu search), so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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