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 usefully adds what is returned (address, capacity), which goes beyond the annotation, but it says nothing about pagination behavior despite that being the tool's main non-obvious trait.

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 short sentences; the purpose and returned fields are front-loaded and the API endpoint is kept as trailing context. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint reference adds little for an agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully names the fields returned (address, capacity). The only gap is that pagination via 'continuation' is left solely to the schema, which is acceptable for a simple read tool.

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%, including a detailed warning that organization_id is not the organizer id, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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 and resource ('List the saved venues of an organization') plus scope ('with address and capacity'), which clearly separates it from eventbrite_create_venue. It does not explicitly differentiate from any other read tool, but none of the siblings list venues.

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?

Usage is only implied by the read verb and the GET endpoint; there is no statement of when to prefer this over alternatives or of prerequisites. The schema hints organization_id comes from eventbrite_list_organizations, but the description itself gives no routing guidance.

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