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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely non-structured business context: each screen runs one advert at a time so a booking has the screen exclusively, and pricing is per screen per day in USD. It does not cover pagination behavior or how to page past the limit, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the inventory is before listing filters and units; nothing is padded. The opening domain sentence is slightly longer than strictly needed, but it earns its place by anchoring an otherwise opaque tool name.

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 an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description need not explain return values, and it supplies the missing conceptual context (what the screens are, exclusivity, price unit). The only unaddressed operational detail is result pagination/sorting beyond what the schema notes, a minor gap for a read-only search.

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%, and the schema already documents units ('in US dollars'), the near_latitude/near_longitude pairing, and the available_from/available_to range meaning. The description restates the filter set and the per-day USD pricing but adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction rules beyond the schema, 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?

The description names a concrete action (find/filter) plus the exact resource (Wall Marketing e-paper screens placed inside venue doors), and enumerates the filter dimensions. The domain framing makes it unmistakably a discovery/list operation rather than the single-entity advertiser.venues.get sibling, and it pre-empts confusion about what 'venue' inventory actually is.

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?

Filter choices (city/address, venue type, price, distance, free dates) imply the situations this tool fits, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g. advertiser.venues.get for a known venue id, or advertiser.bookings.quote for pricing a chosen screen). Usage is inferable, not stated.

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