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

Beyond readOnlyHint, it discloses the required bearer key, the return payload (counts, severe items, cross-contact caveat, source/read date), and the edge-case behavior for venues without machine-readable charts. These are meaningful behavioral traits not visible in annotations or schema.

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 front-load the primary action, then cover auth, return contents, and an important edge case. Every sentence adds information without repetition or filler.

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 usefully enumerates what will be returned and states what happens when a chart is unavailable. Combined with the input schema and readOnly annotation, an agent has enough context to select and call the tool.

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?

The description maps 'venue' and 'restrictions' conceptually but adds little structural detail beyond the schema, which already documents the restrictions array and location. With only 50% schema description coverage, it could have compensated more for the venue object's name field, though the core intent is clear.

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 opening sentence names a specific action—'Rule a whole venue's published chart against the household restrictions'—with a clear resource and scope. The phrase 'whole venue' and 'in one call' distinguishes this from item- or plan-level siblings.

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?

It gives clear context for use—batch auditing a venue's full chart against restrictions—and even directs users to register for a key. It does not explicitly say when to prefer check_item or check_plan, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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