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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful scope context (includes online venues, returns address/timezone/rooms) but says nothing about pagination behavior (default page size 100, max 100) or how many venues to expect, which matters for a paginated list.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope; the trailing "TeamUp: GET /venues" is mildly useful for mapping to the underlying API but is otherwise redundant.

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 compensates by naming the key returned attributes (address, timezone, rooms) and the venue kinds covered. It is close to complete for a read-only list tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema, though pagination semantics are not mentioned.

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 page, page_size, fields, expand, status and has_active_sessions are fully documented in the schema. The description contributes 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+resource ("List the business's venues") and scopes it by clarifying that both physical locations and online venues are included, plus the returned attributes. It is unambiguous among siblings, though it does not explicitly name a contrasting tool.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the tool's role is only implied by its name and the parenthetical scope. For a straightforward list-all endpoint this is adequate but leaves the agent to infer that it is the entry point for discovering venue IDs.

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