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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is met elsewhere. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the free-by-default availability model (open unless the venue marked that date), pagination, and the important limitation that hiring is not supported and no hire rates exist.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose, availability semantics, the hire-vs-request warning, filtering and pagination all in a few tight sentences. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

With no output schema and one required parameter, the description covers purpose, availability semantics, filtering, and pagination, which is enough to call it correctly. It could note the result shape or default page size, but nothing essential is missing for 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 coverage is 60% (city, date, min_capacity documented; limit/offset undocumented). The description compensates partially by noting 'filter by city' and 'paginated', but does not clarify limit/offset semantics or min_capacity, so it adds only marginal value over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with scope: member venues open to receiving a gig request on a date. It distinguishes itself from the broader search_venues sibling and, crucially, declares what it is NOT (room hire / hire rates), so an agent won't confuse it with venue booking tools.

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?

Provides a concrete usage example ('which venues could I pitch for Friday?') and clarifies the request-to-play vs room-hire distinction, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives like search_venues or list_cities explicitly, so it is clear context rather than explicit when/when-not routing.

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