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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one meaningful behavioral detail beyond them — 'published' implies drafts/unpublished venues are excluded — but says nothing about error behavior (slug not found) or return shape.

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 verb and resource, zero filler. Nothing can be trimmed without losing the lookup-key or 'published' qualifier.

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, non-destructive lookup with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gaps are the not-found/error behavior on an unknown slug and any hint at the returned listing fields.

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% with a single 'slug' parameter already documented, patterned and length-bounded in the schema. 'By its slug' merely restates the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies — the description adds no format or constraint 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?

States a specific verb (Get), a precise resource (one published alcohol-free venue), and the lookup key (by its slug). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_listings (single-item retrieval vs search), but does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by its slug' signals a direct key-based lookup as opposed to a search, which is the natural distinction from search_listings. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the alternative tool, and no note about what to do when the slug is unknown.

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