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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the 'published' nuance, indicating the task returns the public profile summary rather than internal data, but it doesn't describe any additional behavioral traits such as field subsets or edge cases. The description is consistent with the annotations and provides some value beyond them.

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, front-loaded sentence that starts with the action ('Get a named venue's published profile summary') and ends with the parameter format. There is no redundant wording, and 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?

The output schema and the annotations carry most of the richness, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It explains the lookup modalities and points to list_cities/search_venues for discovery. A small gap is that with sibling get_venue in the same namespace, the description could state the distinction between 'published profile summary' and whatever get_venue returns, but the overall tool is still sufficiently complete to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100 percent: venue is described as a name or slug, and city is described as disambiguating a name and being ignored for a slug. The description restates 'give its name (and city) or slug' but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema parameters already guarantee; the baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema does the primary parameter documentation.

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 a named venue's published profile summary. It also communicates the input alternatives (name plus optional city, or slug), which distinguishes it from collection-returning siblings like search_venues and get_venues. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_venue, so a linking agent might still be unsure which one to pick for a single venue.

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 gives useful context: to obtain a single venue's published profile you supply a name (and city) or slug. The schema also points to list_cities for disambiguation and search_venues for discovery. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings like get_venue or venue_links, so an agent must infer which tools are alternatives.

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