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

The description adds 'no auth' and 'Read-only' beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, and mentions the return fields. This is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't cover errors or rate limits. No contradiction.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence adds unique value: what it returns, read-only/no auth, and when to use it. No wasted words.

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 simple single-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, and security. The output schema handles return structure. It doesn't mention error handling, but that's not critical for such a simple 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'by provider_id', which essentially repeats the parameter name without explaining its format, origin, or how it's used beyond as an identifier. This is minimal added meaning.

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 clearly states it returns details for one venue by provider_id, listing specific fields (id, type, name, city, address). This distinguishes it from siblings like find_providers (which likely lists) and get_availability (which checks availability).

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?

It explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use it to confirm a venue before get_availability / book.' This gives a clear use case but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it's not a 5.

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