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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that only 'published' links are returned and clarifies that booking is performed via the mcp_endpoint, which is not apparent from the schema or 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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the main action and resource ('Get a named venue's published booking and other links') and then appends the parenthetical clarification about the mcp_endpoint. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with a documented output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (links), the qualifier (published), and the next step (connect to mcp_endpoint to book), covering everything an agent needs to call it 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 input schema has descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), including the hint to call search_venues and list_cities. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 action (Get), the specific resource (a named venue's published booking and other links), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_venue by focusing on links. It also adds the important nuance that actual booking happens via the mcp_endpoint, making the tool's role 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 description provides clear context: use this when you need a venue's booking links, and it notes that booking itself is done via mcp_endpoint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools (e.g., get_venue) or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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