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.