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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the source types (liquor/permit/business filings) and the cost ('1 credit'), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about volume, granularity, or the shape of what's returned — significant gaps for a tool with no output 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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus a cost tag. Every clause earns its place: the verb, the resource, the source enumeration, the fused-into-one-venue relation, and the credit cost.

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 read-only lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description tells the agent what concept the tool returns (underlying signals) but not the return structure, count, or pagination. It is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about output shape.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already defines venue_id (including 'A venue id from new_openings'). The baseline is 4 for a zero/one-param tool, and the description adds the semantic that the id resolves to a venue that has been fused from signals, which is marginal added meaning.

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 verb (Return) and resource (raw underlying signals — liquor/permit/business filings) and pinpoints that they were fused into one venue. The parenthetical enumerates exactly what 'signals' means, so an agent can distinguish this provenance/audit tool from the sibling new_openings, which is where the venue_id originates.

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 phrase 'for transparency' gives a clear context (provenance / explain-the-fusion use case) rather than a search or discovery use case. It does not name an alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended scenario is unambiguous.

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