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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'read-only, non-custodial' and revealing caching behavior ('TVL + perps 24h volume (DeFiLlama, cached 5 min)'), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise yet comprehensive, front-loading the purpose and then efficiently listing returned fields and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague wording.

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 tool with an output schema (not provided but implied), the description covers what is returned and how to use it. It integrates into a workflow ('workflow: RISK step') and references related tool get_trading_workflow. Given the context signals (2 params, high annotation coverage), the description is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the primary parameter 'venue is a slug e.g. 'drift', 'jupiter', 'pacifica'.' The optional 'caller_id' is not explained, but it has a default and is less critical. Overall, the main parameter is well-described, making the tool usable.

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 purpose: 'Live safety/health read for one trading venue (read-only, non-custodial).' It specifies the exact data returned (operational status, heartbeat, deploy slot, SDK compatibility, TVL, perps volume) and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_all_venues_status and get_venue_status by focusing on a single venue with detailed health info.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use BEFORE routing capital to a venue.' and workflow step: 'RISK step (venue-safety gate) -- run before any perps/lending leg; degraded/down reroutes or blocks the order. See get_trading_workflow.' This clearly indicates alternatives and integration context.

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