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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the operation is read-only (likely safe), nor does it describe any side effects, response behavior, or required permissions. 'Full detail' gives no behavioral specifics.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the key purpose. It earns its place with no wasted words. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity; a slightly longer description could add value without harming conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at the return structure. 'Full detail' is vague and does not clarify what fields or information are included. For a simple retrieval tool, this lacks essential context for the agent to anticipate the tool's output.

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 50% (area has a description, id does not). The description 'by id' adds no semantic meaning beyond indicating the id parameter's role. It does not explain id format, where to obtain it, or clarify the area parameter further. The description fails to compensate for the parameter documentation gaps.

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 'Full detail for one venue by id.' clearly states the action (get), resource (venue), and method (by id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_event and search_events which target different resources. However, 'Full detail' is somewhat vague and could be more specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditionals, or exclusions. The description only states the basic function, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and siblings.

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