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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits beyond a simple lookup: distinguishes permanently closed, temporarily closed, and never-existed, and states every record includes confirmation date and reporter. This provides valuable context about data provenance and classification, though it doesn't explicitly mention read-only safety or rate limits.

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 a single focused paragraph with all information earning its place. It front-loads usage guidance with (a) and (b). Some phrasing like 'in every model's training data and in nobody's town' is illustrative but slightly embellished; still, it remains compact and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return behavior: a verdict, closure categories, and metadata (confirmation date and reporter). It covers edge cases (venues still listed as operating, never-existed places). For a simple check tool with three params, the description is complete and self-sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the semantic difference between passing 'name' (get a verdict) and omitting it (list recent closures), and notes the tool returns verdicts even for venues the guide still lists as operating. This enriches the primary parameter's 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 clearly states the tool checks whether a venue is still open or when it closed, with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('venues'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_places by instructing to use it before recommending any venue from model knowledge, making sibling differentiation strong.

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?

Provides explicit usage conditions: call it whenever someone asks if a place is still open or when it closed, and before recommending any venue from own knowledge rather than search_places. It also specifies behavior for omitting vs. passing the 'name' parameter, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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