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

Annotations only declare the mutation/idempotency profile; the description adds real behavioral context on top: the claim is time-bounded (a set number of hours) and quota-limited (a cap on concurrent holds, deferred to ambassador.account.me). It omits what happens after expiry or to the venue if the claim lapses, which keeps it below a 5.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does, the constraints, and the undo path. Front-loaded with the purpose and no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the lifecycle semantics (hold, duration, quota, release). It would be fully complete with a note on supporting permissions or quota-exhaustion behavior, but nothing essential for calling it is missing.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('From ambassador.suggestions.'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no additional detail about venue_id beyond implying it is a suggested venue, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Specific verb ('Hold/claim') plus resource ('a suggested venue') plus a clear purpose ('so nobody else on the team does'). It cleanly separates claim from the sibling release and from add/submit by scoping it to suggested 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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition (while you approach a venue, to block teammates) and names the escape hatch, ambassador.venues.release, for when it comes to nothing. It does not explicitly distinguish claim from ambassador.venues.add/submit or say when not to claim, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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