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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'published' visibility scope; it says nothing about pagination behavior or result caps beyond what the schema implies.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or restated name. It is tight, though its brevity means it carries little beyond the headline purpose.

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 8 optional params, 100% schema coverage, rich annotations and no output schema, the structured fields carry most of the load and the description need not explain returns. It is largely adequate, though a hint about result volume or pagination would round it out.

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%, so every parameter (q, city, region, country, category, sort, limit, cursor) is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'text, place and category' loosely maps to those facets but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, 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 and resource ('Search ... venues') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('published alcohol-free'). However it never names or contrasts with siblings like get_listing or list_categories, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'by text, place and category' implies which facets drive a search, giving implicit usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer list_categories/list_places over searching, and no exclusions.

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