localhum

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by saying what the response contains (regions, aliases, a seven-day count) and by disclosing a licensing constraint (personal, non-commercial use with a terms link), which the annotations do not mention.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the output content is front-loaded, followed immediately by usage and the licensing note. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to select and call the tool.

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 parameters, a full annotation set and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, why to call it, and the usage restriction. It could go slightly further by noting whether the seven-day window is fixed or refreshed, but no material gap remains.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not overstate or imply any hidden input, which keeps it consistent with the empty 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?

The description gives a specific verb (List) and resource (regions and neighbourhoods covered), and states the payload contents: aliases and a seven-day count of things on there. It also positions the tool relative to sibling localhum_whats_on as the source of a valid area value, so the agent can distinguish it from the other 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?

It names two concrete use cases: checking coverage, and obtaining an area value to pass to localhum_whats_on. That is clear context plus an explicit downstream alternative, though it does not say when not to call it (for example, when you already know the area value).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: multiple matches are returned as a choice set rather than an error, and results carry a terms-of-use constraint requiring the localhum links to be preserved. It stops short of saying how many matches or listings may come back.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the lookup verb and the accepted name forms before the return contents. The long enumeration of returned fields is dense but each item is informative; the licensing sentence is the only part that reads as boilerplate.

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, return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description's job is to cover identity, ambiguity handling and licensing — all of which it does. The one gap is failure behavior when no venue matches the given name.

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%, so the schema already explains all three parameters, including the concise/detailed enum. The description only adds concrete name examples ("Winstons", "The Casbah") and the phrase "coming days", which loosely gestures at the days window without stating the default or the 1–60 range. Baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource ("look up one venue") and then enumerates exactly what comes back: location, website, Instagram, regular weekly nights and deals, and upcoming bookings. That enumeration implicitly separates it from localhum_whats_on (event feed) and localhum_areas (geography) without the agent needing to open a schema.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the agent learns that ambiguous names yield a list to choose from, and that pages are for personal, non-commercial use with localhum links. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer localhum_whats_on or localhum_areas over this tool, and no mention of what to do when nothing matches.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantial behaviour beyond them: default scope when place or time is omitted (all Greater San Diego, next seven days), multi-page results signalled by next_offset, and the licensing constraint that listings carry a localhum link for personal, non-commercial use. Return contents are listed rather than left to the output schema, which is mild duplication, and rate-limit/error behaviour is not addressed.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage, then defaults, then return shape and licensing — a sensible information hierarchy with no filler. The middle paragraph of quoted example questions runs slightly long, but each clause carries distinct guidance.

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 10-parameter tool whose schema is fully documented and which has both annotations and an output schema, the description still covers the gaps that matter: default search scope, out-of-region behaviour, pagination via next_offset, and licensing terms. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics: the question must be passed verbatim with place and time intact rather than rewritten into keyword lists, and place/time/kinds/exclusions/free/for-kids are all read out of the words, which clarifies the interaction between the required question and the optional override parameters. It stops short of explaining precedence per-parameter, which the schema does handle individually.

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?

"Find what's on at San Diego's bars, breweries, clubs, cafes, galleries and small venues from a question in plain words" gives a specific verb, resource and geography. The scope statement ("covers San Diego County only") plus the pointer to localhum_areas and away from localhum_venue makes it clearly distinguishable from both siblings.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ("questions about events or things to do in San Diego") with an enumerated set of intents, plus explicit when-not (outside San Diego County → says so and lists nothing). It also describes how to split multiple wishes into separate calls and names localhum_areas for neighbourhood resolution.

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