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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds no further behavioral context such as response envelope, error behavior, or authentication requirements. It is consistent with annotations but doesn't go beyond them.

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, purpose-dense sentence with the core verb and resource front-loaded, followed by a compact list of returned fields. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter getter, the description provides the returned fields and identifies the lookup key. It lacks information about error responses or not-found behavior, but given the absence of an output schema, the field list gives a reasonable picture; annotations cover the read-only nature. This is adequate for a straightforward fetch.

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%, and the schema already describes venue_id as a numeric id. The description restates the id-based lookup but adds no format, range, or example beyond the schema, so it adds no extra 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('one venue'), and key selector ('by id'), and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events or get_fight; an agent can infer its purpose without opening the schema.

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 a specific venue id is known and full venue details are needed, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. There is no exclusion or comparison with sibling list tools, though the id-based lookup is fairly self-explanatory.

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