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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains record shape, field sets, concise/full modes, and the fact that only active venues appear. It also tells the agent that venue is the ID to chain into get_venue_health, which is useful behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the main purpose. It explains the field modes clearly in a deliberately chosen format; the only minor redundancy is repeating "Read-only" when the annotations already declare readOnlyHint.

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 an output schema exists and read-only/idempotent annotations are provided, the description covers invocation intent, record shape, and a sensible follow-up tool. It could be slightly more explicit about the decision between get_all_venues_status and get_venue_status, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 description compensates for the 0% schema coverage by explaining `detail` values: "concise" trims records and "full" adds deploy slot, TVL, volume, and uptime. It does not explain `caller_id`, but that parameter is optional with a default and seems peripheral to functionality.

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 identifies a specific resource: a dashboard overview of all configured venues with per-venue health records. It states the operational purpose, routing decisions, and distinguishes itself from single-venue tools by emphasizing 'all' and 'one health record per active venue.'

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: use this as an overview when picking a venue in a single call, and it even points to get_venue_health as the follow-up. It does not explicitly state exclusions like 'use get_venue_status for a single venue,' but the intended workflow is clear.

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