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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds error behavior (returns {error: ...} for malformed/unknown id) and enumerates return content, which is useful beyond annotations. No contradiction; adds context on failure modes.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates key return fields and error case. Zero fluff; every clause earns its place.

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 compensates by listing the expected return fields and the error format. For a simple id-based lookup, it covers all needed operational details. Sibling tools are distinct and the description fully equips an agent to call it correctly.

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 the description need not explain the id parameter further. The description mentions 'by id' but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema's example. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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's function: retrieving one venue in full by id, read-only. It enumerates the specific content (fields, provenance, hours, open_now_utc, booking link, nearby venues) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_places (list) or cities/dishes (other resources).

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 implies usage when you have an id and need full venue details, and the schema explicitly ties id to 'search_places returned'. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or conditions when not to use this tool, though the sibling list and schema hint at the lookup workflow. Lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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