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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld; the description adds that the phone number is intentionally masked here, and that this tool leaves booking-related behavior to other tools. These are meaningful behavioral facts beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the return payload, then gives a short WHEN TO USE block, and closes with the one caveat that matters. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

Given one required parameter, no output schema, and helpful annotations, the description tells the agent exactly what fields will come back, how to obtain the slug, when to use it, and when it is not the right tool. Nothing essential 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% and the schema already explains the slug parameter with provenance and an example, so the description carries little param burden. It reinforces the 'after search-venues' relationship but does not add new parameter semantics.

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 identifies a concrete resource ('full public profile for one venue') and lists the exact fields returned, so the purpose is unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from search-venues (one venue vs list) and from reveal-phone (masked phone).

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?

Gives explicit trigger timing ('after search-venues') and example user questions that should route here. It also names a clear exclusion boundary: use reveal-phone only when the user actually wants to call. This is strong decision guidance.

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