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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description goes well beyond them: sign-in/auth requirement, the 180-day `stale` convention, the meaning of a null figure ('not published'), the fact that drawings are not served, and the role of `geometry_status`. This is exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Everything is packed into one dense paragraph, front-loaded with the auth prerequisite and then the returned field inventory. There is little waste, though the very long field enumeration makes the sentence harder to scan than a short lead plus a list would be.

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 entire return-value burden, and it does so: it enumerates the hall/room attributes, documents the per-row `source_url` and `as_of` staleness semantics, and clarifies what a null figure means. For a one-parameter, read-only tool this is essentially complete.

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 `venue` parameter is fully documented in the schema (slug or uuid, from search_venues/get_venue). The description repeats that provenance ('slug or uuid from search_venues') but adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, so the schema is doing the work. 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?

The description names the exact resource and scope: 'the halls and rooms of one venue', with a parenthetical pointing at the sibling that produces the slug/uuid (search_venues). That cleanly separates it from venue-level tools like get_venue. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with search_venue_spaces, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 tells the agent the input must come from search_venues/get_venue and that an account sign-in is required, which is useful pre-call context. It never states when to choose this tool over search_venue_spaces (single venue vs. cross-venue search), so the selection rule is left to inference.

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