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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses concrete behavior: unknown names return empty results with optional catalog name suggestions and it never invents addresses or geo. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: scope, return behavior, and failure behavior. No filler, and the most important scoping caveats are front-loaded before the return semantics.

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?

The combination of description, full schema coverage, output schema, and annotations covers purpose, scope, parameter semantics, return behavior, and failure behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this 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 the schema already fully documents query, city, and type. The description adds 'by name, alias, or id', but that largely restates the schema's query description rather than adding new semantic detail.

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 a specific resource ('seeded public industry catalog of well-known venues and hotels'), and immediately distinguishes itself from a complete world database and org-private Soundcheck venues. This makes it easy for an agent to tell it apart from sibling tools like get_place or search_inventory.

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 scope and exclusions: it is seeded, public, not complete, and not org-private. This tells the agent when not to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use get_place when you have an ID'.

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