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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower, but the description adds almost no behavioral context beyond 'with their public ids'. It says nothing about pagination, result limits, or what happens when the org has no venues.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and return payload front-loaded; nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 one-parameter, optional-argument read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It lacks any mention of result shape or volume, which a listing tool would benefit from.

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% and the single orgId parameter is documented with the cross-reference to list_orgs and the omit-when-single-org rule. The description adds no parameter detail, so the 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?

States a specific resource (venues/locations) and scope (of an organization) plus what is returned (public ids). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_orgs and list_events, though it never uses an explicit verb and offers no contrast with alternatives.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the eight sibling list_* tools. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and resource noun.

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