TavernFinder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions the required OAuth scope, membership prerequisite, and role-based restrictions, which go beyond the simple action of creating. It does not detail side effects or error conditions, but the disclosed constraints are substantial and beyond schema information.

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 exactly two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. Every clause adds value: action, event type, venue, auth scope, membership requirement, and role limitation. No wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, multiple types of events, role restrictions) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description covers the critical contextual prerequisites and constraints well. It lacks explicit return-value information, but that is not a strict requirement when no output schema exists. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for safe selection and invocation.

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 input schema covers all 11 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context by distinguishing 'open event' vs 'private table', which clarifies the roles of parameters like tableId and accessCode. This extra meaning elevates the score above baseline.

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: to create a new event (open or private table) at a venue. It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('event'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rsvp_event (attend) and search_events (read).

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 provides context on when the tool can be used: it requires a personal access token with `write:create_event` scope, the user must be a venue member, and only staff/CL can create open events. This implicitly instructs when not to use it (e.g., non-members), though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns usable access and refresh tokens immediately, that the user is unverified until email click, and that most read paths still work. This is valuable beyond what a schema could convey, though it omits details like error cases or rate limits.

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 three sentences, leading with the core action, then consequential behaviors, and verification nuance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 adequately explains return tokens and the unverified state, which are critical for an agent to proceed. It lacks explicit error scenarios, but the essential behavioral context is covered; with six schema-documented parameters, this is sufficient.

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 each parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 opens with 'Create a new TavernFinder account,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create_event, rsvp_event, search_events, etc.) by targeting user registration, not events, games, or venues.

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 for creating accounts and clarifies the immediate post-condition (usable tokens) and verification status, giving clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly different domains, so no exclusions are needed—the context is sufficient.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the authentication scope requirement and that it acts on behalf of the authenticated user, but it does not explain what happens if the user is already RSVP'd, idempotency, or the response format. These are meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and every sentence adds useful context. No filler.

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 the tool's simple action and the 100% schema coverage, the description covers the key prerequisites (auth scope, search_events) and the core behavior. It lacks explicit return-value documentation, but for an RSVP action this is not critical. It's generally complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

All parameter descriptions are in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal additional meaning. It does reinforce the need for both venueId and eventId as a pair, but doesn't add extra semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 action ('RSVP / join'), the target resource ('TavernFinder event'), and the scope ('on behalf of the authenticated user'). It also references the prerequisite search_events, which helps distinguish this from create_event or register_user.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Use search_events first to find the venueId + eventId pair', providing a clear when-to-use directive and a sequenced alternative. It also specifies the required scope, giving additional context for when this tool should be invoked.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search purpose and that events are 'upcoming' and 'near a location,' failing to disclose optional parameters, default limits, pagination, or return format.

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, focused sentence (14 words) that front-loads the primary action and resource. It is concise with no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the search results will contain, how missing coordinates affect the search, or how it relates to sibling tools like search_games or search_venues.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level domain context but no parameter-specific enhancement beyond the schema. Mentions of 'tournaments, leagues, casual play' are not directly tied to the enum values.

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 the action (search) and resource (upcoming tabletop gaming events), and 'near a location' adds geographic context. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_games and search_venues by the resource type, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 for location-based event search, but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools exist, but no comparison or alternative recommendations are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Search' implies a non-mutating read operation, which is the primary behavior. However, the description does not explicitly state that it is read-only or safe, nor does it mention any output format beyond the implicit BGG ID.

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 that front-loads the action ('Search') and the resource. No unnecessary words are present.

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 the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate. It states the tool's purpose and the reason for using it (to get BGG IDs for filtering events). The schema covers parameter semantics, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the return format.

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% for both parameters (q and limit), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the context that q is the game name used to find BGG IDs, but it does not provide additional details about the limit parameter or any constraints.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' with the resource 'board games in our catalog' and states the purpose: to find BoardGameGeek IDs. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling search tools like search_events and search_venues.

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 explicitly mentions that the tool is 'required for filtering events by game', which clarifies the primary use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the purpose makes it self-evident.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, yet it only restates the search action and target resources. It does not describe result format, sorting behavior, pagination, permissions, or any side effects, providing no behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 sentence with no wasted words and leads with the action verb. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema, the one-line description is insufficient. It does not describe how results are ordered, whether filters are combinable, or what the response contains, making it incomplete for effective agent usage.

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 100%, so every parameter already has explicit documentation. The description adds no parameter details or filter combination semantics, so it provides no added value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and names the resource types (game stores, hobby centers, community spaces), which distinguishes it from sibling search tools for events and games. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention the venue scope, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 the tool is for finding venues but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of search_events or search_games. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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