VenuNite Events

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the privacy surface ('Draft links contain preferences and the chosen location'), the operational side effects ('Hosted calls record private request quota and telemetry'), and that calendar apps, not this tool, control refresh timing. It also confirms the draft is editable but not saved or subscribed, consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the deliverable in sentence one, then boundaries, then return value. Four sentences carry a lot of signal, though the telemetry/quota and calendar-refresh sentence is lower priority and slightly denser than needed.

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 6-parameter nested-object mutation with an output schema, it covers the missing pieces: what is produced (draft plus preview link), what is explicitly not done, how the user confirms and saves in the browser, and the next-30-days preview window. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 already 83%, with place, location, radius_miles, interests and their nested fields documented in-schema. The description only restates the parameter concepts ('interests, a fixed area, weekdays, time windows and exclusions') without adding format or edge-case meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Prepare an editable, free calendar draft and a VenuNite preview link') plus the exact inputs it derives them from. It also implicitly separates itself from search_events by declaring 'The tool performs no event search, geocoding, calendar save or subscription.'

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?

Clear context for use (interests, fixed area, weekdays, time windows, exclusions) and explicit exclusions of what the tool does not do, which steers the agent away from treating it as a search or save tool. It never names search_events or create_ticket_handoff as alternatives for those adjacent jobs, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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?

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that links are publicly readable by anyone who has them, changed settings produce a new link, hosted calls consume request quota, and private telemetry is recorded. It also clarifies the no-storage and no-subscription behavior, which is important for a non-read-only, non-idempotent 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses short sentences to cover usage constraints, privacy, link behavior, and quota implications. Every sentence adds useful information without restating the tool name or title.

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 presence of an output schema, rich annotations, and 83% schema description coverage, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It fills the key behavioral gaps around privacy, link sharing, quota, and telemetry.

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 high at 83%, so the schema already documents most parameter semantics. The description reinforces the five-interest limit, 1–50-mile radius, and per-interest area override, but those details are largely present in the schema rather than adding substantial new meaning.

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 and resource: return Google, Apple, and Outlook subscription links plus an exact live preview. It also clarifies that no stored account or calendar is created and no calendar app is subscribed, which meaningfully distinguishes it from create_calendar_draft.

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 gives useful context such as no VenuNite sign-in and no stored account, implying when this tool is appropriate, but it never explicitly says when to use it instead of siblings like create_calendar_draft or search_events. The usage boundary is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the API-key auth requirement, the 10-per-minute per-account rate limit, the billing behavior (counts against tool-call limits, no search-result charges), and the exact side-effect boundary (no purchase, reserve, hold, availability guarantee, or booking confirmation). This is precisely the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the core action and resource, then layers auth, return value, side-effect disclaimer, and limits in tight sentences. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is redundant with the name or schema.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it still flags handoff_url as preview-safe. Auth, rate limits, billing, and side-effect boundaries are all covered, leaving no gap an agent needs before calling.

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% and event_id is fully documented in the schema as the stable ID returned by search_events. The description only echoes that it must be a 'specific event_id', adding no format or constraint detail beyond the structured field, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (create) and resource (attributed VenuNite ticket handoff) scoped to an event_id. The reader can immediately separate it from the sibling search_events, which only retrieves events.

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?

Gives clear preconditions (live API key, user must explicitly select Continue) and a firm scope boundary (records a handoff, does not purchase/reserve/hold/confirm). It never explicitly names search_events as the alternative or states when not to call it, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and non-destructive; the description supplies the missing 'why' — private quota and request telemetry are recorded, an uncached place_name is sent to the public Nominatim geocoder, and link-health degradation produces null source_url/url with ticket_link_status unavailable. These are real side effects and failure modes not derivable from the annotation block, and they are consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Four paragraphs is substantial, but it is front-loaded with purpose first and operational caveats second, and most sentences carry durable information (telemetry, geocoder, link health, hard-filter tags). The hard-filter paragraph restates what the vibe_tags schema already says, which is the main redundancy; it is not padded 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?

For a 19-parameter, zero-required, open-world search tool with an output schema, the description covers the things structured fields cannot: side effects (quota, telemetry, external geocoding), link-health semantics, and the hard-versus-soft filter contract. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and return-shape explanation beyond the output schema is a minor redundancy rather than a gap.

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 already 100%, which sets the baseline at 3. The description still adds cross-cutting meaning: the fixed 49-tag / 6-facet vocabulary, the fact that the five safety tags are hard filters rather than ranking signals (which is a semantic contract, not just a field description), and that event_url survives even when every external link is broken. This is genuine value beyond the schema text, though several tag details are duplicated from the vibe_tags field description.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb+resource ('Search US local events near a place and within a date window'), enumerates the covered event types, and names the differentiating scope ('including events at small venues'). It also states the retrieval mechanism (semantic venue-vibe search + radius + filters) and the returned artifacts, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 when-not guidance ('cannot buy tickets, create or modify events, edit calendars, or message organizers'), which implicitly routes ticket intent toward the sibling create_ticket_handoff. However it never names that sibling or states the positive condition for switching to it, so the routing is inferential rather than explicit.

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