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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that only published links are returned and that actual booking happens via the mcp_endpoint, but it does not explain much beyond that, and the 'venue's own host calls this get_venue_links' note is somewhat ambiguous.

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 main clause is concise and front-loaded: 'Get a named venue's published booking and other links.' The parenthetical adds important behavioral context but is a bit convoluted, especially the phrase 'the venue's own host calls this get_venue_links.'

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?

Given the full schema, explicit annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the key distinction between fetching links and actually booking. The only notable gap is that 'mcp_endpoint' is referenced without explanation, though the output schema likely clarifies it.

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%, with the venue and city parameters already well documented. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a named venue's published booking and other links.' This clearly identifies what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling venue tools like get_venue or venue_profile, though the 'links' focus is reasonably distinct.

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 it (when you need a named venue's published links) and includes an exclusion: use the mcp_endpoint to actually book rather than this tool. However, it does not give broader when-to-use guidance versus sibling tools such as get_venue or venue_profile.

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