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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already signals this is a state-mutating call. The description adds the concrete REST endpoint (POST /organizations/{organization_id}/venues/), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions/scopes needed, whether the created venue can be updated or removed, or any rate limits.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: purpose first, then the underlying endpoint. No wasted words and the essential information is front-loaded.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description leans entirely on the fully-covered schema. It doesn't explain what is returned (venue ID) or confirm the required org/name fields, leaving minor gaps for an agent that only reads the description.

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 the schema already documents all 14 parameters including the required organization_id and name. The description provides no additional parameter meaning, 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 ('Save a new venue') and resource ('venue'), with the scope 'under an organization' and the follow-on purpose ('to use as an event's venue_id'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_venues and read tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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 'to use as an event's venue_id' implies the usage context (create a venue when you need one to attach to an event), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as list_venues for lookup.

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