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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral caveat: recommendations do not mean availability or free eligibility is confirmed and must be verified after contact. That is real context beyond the structured hints. It still omits result shape and pagination semantics beyond the cursor mention, so it is not a full 5.

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 whole definition is a single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the search purpose, then parameter routing, then the confirmation caveat. Almost every clause earns its place, though the run-together clause style makes it harder to scan than a short structured list would be.

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 14-parameter, zero-required, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the intent, most parameter roles, pagination, and the important caveat that results are unconfirmed recommendations. The remaining undocumented inputs (q, limit, organizationId) are the only real 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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does explain the key non-obvious parameters: id (detail lookup), providerId (a specific provider's venues), cursor (pagination), activityId/composeId (recommendation mode), plus the filter set city/district/capacity/start time/freeForMe. It leaves q, limit, endsAt and organizationId unexplained, so it compensates well but not completely.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource in '城市/区县/人数/开始时间与本人优惠找场地' (search venues by city/district/capacity/start time and personal discount), so an agent immediately knows it retrieves venue listings with filters. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from potential siblings such as list_parks or search_all, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 per-parameter routing ('id看详情, providerId看某人场地, cursor翻页, activityId/composeId推荐'), which effectively tells the agent which input to supply for which intent. It stops short of stating when to prefer this tool over an alternative, so it is implied rather than explicit usage guidance.

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