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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuine context beyond that: only the entry organization's venues are returned (other buildings' venues are excluded), and results do not confirm schedule, discounts or payment. It does not disclose pagination behavior despite limit/cursor parameters.

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 a single dense, front-loaded statement: what is returned first, then the scoping constraint and the caveat. There is no filler, though the terse packing of three distinct ideas into one sentence slightly reduces readability.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields and the key caveats, which is adequate. But with five undocumented parameters and no pagination or filtering guidance, an agent still needs to reverse-engineer how to call it correctly.

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 0% and all five parameters (q, limit, cursor, minCapacity, organizationId) are undocumented. The description mentions capacity and price only as returned attributes, not as filterable inputs, and says nothing about the query string, page size, cursor, or the required organizationId, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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: listing this organization's public venues with intro images, capacity and price. It even narrows scope ('仅查入口组织，不把别的楼宇的场地当作本楼'), which helps distinguish it from generic venue searches. It does not name the specific sibling it differs from (search_venues, get_ecosystem_venue_availability), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 clause '查询不代表档期、优惠或付款已确认' implicitly tells the agent this is a browse-only listing and that availability/booking must be handled elsewhere, and '仅查入口组织' scopes when to use it. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not guidance is given, so the routing is left to inference.

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