VenuNite Events

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does an excellent job explaining key behaviors: it describes the search methodology (combines semantic search, filtering), safety tag handling (hard filters that exclude venues without them), and output format (ranked events with score breakdown). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, which prevents a perfect score despite the strong coverage of core functionality.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized for a complex tool. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides important behavioral details and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating some of the tag explanation more tightly, but overall it's efficient and clear.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does an excellent job providing context. It explains the search methodology, safety tag behavior, and invocation pattern. The main gap is the lack of output schema, so the description doesn't detail the structure of returned events or score breakdowns. However, it compensates well with behavioral transparency and usage guidelines, making it nearly complete for agent understanding.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 13 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about the 'vibe_tags' field (mentioning the 49 canonical tags across 6 facets and emphasizing safety-critical tags as hard filters), but most parameter semantics are already covered in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description provides useful supplemental guidance on tag usage.

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: 'Find events matching a user's natural-language request.' It specifies the exact functionality (semantic search, geographic radius filtering, date/cost/category hard filters, safety tags) and distinguishes it from potential alternatives by emphasizing 'Call this ONCE per user query' rather than multiple speculative calls. This is specific, comprehensive, and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicit guidance on when and how to use this tool. It states 'Call this ONCE per user query with the structured args you inferred from their question — do not try to issue multiple speculative calls,' which clearly defines the invocation pattern. It also explains when to include safety tags ('Only include a safety tag when the user's query explicitly requested it') and provides context on tag usage, making it clear when to apply specific filters versus general queries.

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