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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds useful context beyond annotations: name inputs are resolved through RA search, and the response bundles a profile plus upcoming/latest events rather than only identity data.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the return payload following immediately. No filler, repetition, or hedging.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so concretely (profile fields plus events). The remaining gaps are small: event sort order ('upcoming/latest'), how ambiguous name matches are handled, and pagination of events.

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%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema, including the precedence of venue_id over name. The description adds only the detail that name lookup goes through RA search, which is marginal 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?

States a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('RA venue/club') and enumerates what the result contains (address, capacity, area, top artists, events). It implicitly differentiates from ra_artist/ra_event by resource type but never names those siblings, so the differentiation is not explicit.

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 makes usage clear in practice (name-based lookup or known numeric id) but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never points to ra_event_listings or ra_search_areas as alternatives. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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