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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explicitly states that fields absent from the registry are omitted and never invented, and that the operation is read-only. This goes well beyond the schema by setting accurate expectations about absent data and data integrity.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately names the action and resource, then lists the returned fields. It is dense but every clause adds useful information, and because there is no output schema, the length is justified.

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 the tool has only one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it enumerates the full set of return fields, explains omission behavior, and declares the read-only nature. An agent can reliably decide to invoke it and interpret its results without needing additional context.

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 input schema already fully documents the lone slug parameter with an example and its source ('as returned by search_venues or the /api/v1/venues.json feed'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description repeats 'stable slug' but adds little parametric meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the full verified record for one NABarFinder venue by its stable slug.' It enumerates the exact fields returned and references search_venues as the source of the slug, which clearly distinguishes this single-venue lookup from sibling tools like search_venues and list_cities.

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?

The description gives clear context: this is a single-venue lookup keyed by a stable slug, and it tells the agent the slug comes from search_venues or the /api/v1/venues.json feed. It implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives such as 'use search_venues when you need a list.'

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