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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the two distinct behaviors (list-all vs. drill-in), discloses that results include descriptions and venue counts, and reveals the curation aspect (hand-picked, not filterable). This is useful context that the annotations alone don't provide.

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, each earning its place: the first defines the resource and gives examples, the second explains the two invocation modes, and the third provides the key differentiator from sibling tools. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose first, and there is zero redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does, how to invoke it in both modes, what the response contains (descriptions, venue counts, bookable venues), and why it's distinct from alternatives. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify the exact response format, but with no output schema and a simple list-returning tool, this is a small omission.

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 the schema already documents the 'category' parameter. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of omitting vs. providing the parameter, and gives a concrete example slug ('big-carp-lakes'). This goes beyond the schema's basic description and clarifies the parameter's optionality and effect.

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 ('Browse'), a specific resource ('curated venue categories'), and gives concrete examples of what those categories are. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting these lists are hand-picked and cannot be reproduced by filtering on venue attributes, which clearly separates it from search_venues and list_venues.

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 explicitly explains the two usage modes: calling with no arguments lists all categories, while passing a category slug opens the bookable venues in that category. It also provides a clear exclusion criterion — these curated lists cannot be reproduced by filtering on venue attributes — which tells the agent when NOT to use this tool in favor of search_venues.

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