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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-annotation context: the shape of the return (venues with slug and URL) and the fact that get_venue is needed for address and events. It doesn't mention pagination or result ordering, but the important behavioral handoff is disclosed.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool finds before the usage hint and the return/handoff note. No filler or restatement of the title.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so partially — slug and URL are named, and the agent is told to call get_venue for address and events. Missing only secondary detail such as ordering, total counts, or behavior when no venue matches.

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 75% — limit, query and country are documented in the schema, while city is not. The description's 'by name, country or city' loosely maps query/country/city to search dimensions, but adds no format or matching-semantics detail beyond what the schema already supplies. Baseline 3 for high coverage is appropriate.

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 (find) and a narrowly-scoped resource (dance studios and retreat centers hosting Contact Improvisation), and names the filter dimensions (name, country, city). This is immediately distinguishable from search_communities, search_events, and search_teachers.

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 an explicit triggering scenario ('where is CI taught in <city>') and names the companion tool search_communities, plus routes the agent to get_venue for follow-up detail. It stops short of stating when this tool should NOT be used instead of the sibling searches, so not a full 5.

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