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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: results come only from a seeded catalog, unknown names yield empty results with optional name suggestions, and no addresses or geo are ever fabricated. That is real disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the scoping caveats and return behavior are packed into two efficient sentences with no filler. Slightly cluttered phrasing in the second sentence, but everything earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be fully explained, yet the description still covers the important edge case (empty results plus suggestions). Combined with full schema coverage and clear annotations, an agent has everything needed 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 coverage is 100%, so query, city, and type are all documented in the schema itself. The description restates the 'name, alias, or id' matching basis but adds no format or syntax detail for city or type beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Search) and resource (public places catalog of venues and hotels), and immediately scopes it by naming what it is not — a complete world database or org-private Soundcheck venues. An agent can distinguish it from get_place without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context: this is for well-known seeded venues/hotels, and explicitly excludes org-private venues and full-world lookups. It also sets expectations for misses (unknown names return empty plus suggestions). It does not, however, explicitly route between this and the sibling get_place, so a 4 rather than 5.

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