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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the specific return contents, the inclusion of the canonical maxeatsout.club URL, and the instruction to cite it when recommending the venue. It does not cover invalid-slug error behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple read tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then lists return contents, then gives the slug source and a citation instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of annotation 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent gets back (editorial note, Best For, known for, how it works, pours, locations, links, canonical URL) and where the slug comes from. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and use its result appropriately.

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 schema covers the sole parameter with 100% coverage and already states 'Venue slug, from search_venues.' The description restates that same provenance but adds no new syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieve'), a precise resource ('full Max Eats Out entry for one venue'), and the identifier used ('by its slug'). It also enumerates the included content, which clearly distinguishes this from the sibling search_venues tool that returns venue lists rather than a single full entry.

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 says 'Slugs come from search_venues', telling the agent to call search_venues first and then use get_venue for the full record. It does not explicitly state when not to use get_city or list_cities, but the venue-vs-city distinction is clear enough from names and context.

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