Aventura — event venues and artists

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

readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already establish this as a safe, self-contained read. The description adds useful content scope (founding year, cities, ordering process, phone), but says nothing about response format or data freshness, so it is a modest addition over the annotations.

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 sentences with no redundant boilerplate; the parenthetical packs the coverage areas tightly. The most actionable line (when to call it) sits last rather than first, which is a minor front-loading miss.

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 input or output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does list the returned content domains. A note on output shape or language would round it out, but nothing essential is missing for a zero-arg info 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-argument tool is 4.

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 concrete resource (the «Авентура» agency) and enumerates the information it carries: what it is, what it does, how to order, and a phone number. It is clearly distinguishable from the artist/place/case siblings, though it never names them.

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?

"Вызывай первым, если пользователь спрашивает про агентство или как оформить заказ" gives an explicit trigger condition plus a priority ordering (call first). It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative for adjacent questions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. In exchange, the description usefully discloses the shape of the result (city, photo, video count, fee) in the absence of an output schema, though it says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or empty results.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, but it is a fragmented noun list rather than a front-loaded action statement, and the trailing phrase 'как узнать гонорар' is ambiguous about whether it is a field or an instruction.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the field enumeration partially compensates for the missing return contract. Still, the core statement of what the tool returns as a whole is left implicit, so it is only minimally adequate.

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 single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description carries no extra burden. The description adds no parameter detail, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.

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 enumerates the contents of an artist card (description, city, photo, video count, fee info) but never states the action — that it retrieves a single artist's profile. An agent can infer 'get one artist' from the name and title, but the sentence reads as a content list rather than a purpose statement.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of the obvious alternative (search_artists to obtain the ID). The only routing hint lives in the schema parameter description ('ID из результатов поиска'), not in the tool description itself.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the breadth of data returned (a full venue card rather than a summary), but says nothing about error behavior for an invalid ID or whether any fields may be absent.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field enumeration is dense but every item tells the agent what to expect back. Slightly list-heavy, but nothing is wasted.

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, enumerating the returned fields is the right way to compensate, and the annotations cover the read-only profile. Only gaps are error/invalid-ID behavior and any indication of what is omitted when data is unavailable.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, and the schema itself states it comes from search results. The description adds no syntax, format, or validity detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for fully documented params 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 the resource (площадка) and enumerates exactly what the card contains — halls, capacity, catering, parking, accommodation, price, metro, photos. That makes the tool's purpose unmistakable, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling search_places or list_place_selections, so the agent must infer this is the by-ID detail lookup.

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: the schema's 'ID из результатов поиска' hints that this is the follow-up call after a search, but the description itself never states when to use get_place versus search_places or the list_* siblings. Adequate but no explicit routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral content by disclosing what comes back (per-city venue and artist counts, section links), but says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the key payload elements with no filler. It is slightly dense in its comma-separated noun phrases, but every clause carries information.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return contents and the tool's navigational role. It stops short of stating the intended calling context relative to sibling listers, which is the one remaining gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no argument semantics to document. Per the rubric, a parameterless tool has a baseline of 4, and the description neither adds nor omits anything relevant here.

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 resource (the agency's cities) and what accompanies it (counts of venues and artists, section links), so an agent knows this is a city-listing/navigation tool. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling listers such as list_place_selections or list_services, and the listing verb is only implied by the noun phrase.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the entry point for city/geo browsing rather than one of the search_* tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say whether these are static curated lists versus search results, how many items are returned, or whether entries link to individual places.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource type. The category enumeration is dense but each example carries informational weight as a distinct collection theme.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It never indicates what a 'подборка' object contains (ID, title, linked places), which the missing output schema leaves unexplained.

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% and the city parameter is fully documented in the schema, including accepted slugs and synonyms. The description's 'по городам' merely echoes that, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource ('тематические подборки') and enumerates concrete categories (новогодние, лофты, дворцы, теплоходы), so an agent can infer it returns curated venue collections. However, there is no verb and no statement of what is actually returned, and nothing explicitly distinguishes it from sibling search_places or get_place.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'по городам' only hints that the tool can be filtered by city, without saying when an agent should prefer this over search_places.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and data boundary are covered. The description adds that results include links to service pages and spans multiple service categories, but it does not mention pagination, result count, or response format. This is useful context beyond annotations but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and scope. The long list of service examples is useful but could be trimmed, and trailing 'и т.д.' is slightly loose.

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 two optional, fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the resource, coverage by city, categories, and page links. It could more explicitly state that the tool returns a list and how results are ordered or limited, but the core call context is present.

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%, so both q and city are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes that services are organized by city; it adds no extra syntax, matching rules, or query behavior beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies a specific resource—agency services by city—and lists representative service categories, so the agent can distinguish it from siblings such as list_cities and search_places. It implies listing but does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'returns'.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent can infer it is for browsing services by city, but nothing tells it when to prefer this tool over list_cities, list_place_selections, or search_places.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral caveat — that stars travel to any city, meaning the city filter may not exclude them — but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume beyond what the schema's offset/limit descriptions already provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded scope and then filter mechanics. The opening category list partially duplicates the type enum descriptions, but it frames the domain vocabulary the query terms draw on, so it is not pure waste.

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 five-parameter, fully documented, non-destructive search tool this covers the essentials: what is searchable, what the filters mean, and domain terms. Since no output schema exists, a brief note on what a result contains would have closed the remaining gap.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the type enum values and the city slug/alias handling. The description's example keywords ('саксофонист', 'стендап', 'на английском') overlap with the q and city schema descriptions, adding little beyond the 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?

The second sentence states the operation and scope precisely: filtering artists by type, city, and keywords (name, genre, ad-hoc terms). Combined with the title and the enumerated artist categories, an agent can tell this apart from search_places and get_artist. The lead sentence is more catalog copy than purpose statement, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Listing the filter dimensions implies the search/refine use case, and the example keywords hint at what kinds of free-text queries work. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_artist (single artist lookup) or search_places, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful fact that results are past (conducted) events with specific fields, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or the effect of the 'limit' default.

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 dense sentences with no filler; what the tool returns is front-loaded, followed by the use cases and example queries. Efficient for the amount of context packed in.

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 carries the return-value burden and does list the fields a case exposes plus example query terms. It is adequate for a 4-parameter, optional-only search tool, missing only result-count/pagination expectations.

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 the baseline is 3. The example query strings ('новогодний корпоратив', 'Газпромнефть') illustrate what 'q' accepts, adding some value, but city/limit/min_guests semantics come entirely from the schema.

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 identifies the resource precisely — a portfolio of completed events — and enumerates what each case contains (client, format, venue, guest count, tasks and solution). It is clear enough to distinguish from search_places or search_artists by resource type, though the search verb itself is implied rather than stated.

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 gives explicit use contexts: 'для примеров «как это было»' (how-it-was examples) and 'для тендеров/КП' (tenders/proposals), plus sample query terms. It does not name sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, so no exclusion guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by describing the return payload (capacity for banquet/cocktail/theater, price guide, address, link), which is not in the annotations. Pagination via offset/limit is not mentioned, keeping it from 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and venue types, then filters, then return shape, then the hand-off to get_place. The long enumeration of venue types is dense but earns its place by aiding query matching; overall tight with no filler sentences.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so (capacity, price, address, link). Combined with full param coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/offset behavior is left implicit.

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 the schema already documents all nine parameters in detail. The description restates the filter axes (city, guests, words, purpose) but adds no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (поиск/filter) and resource (площадки), enumerates the venue categories covered, and lists the filter dimensions. It also names get_place as the follow-up for details, so an agent can distinguish it from that sibling.

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 clear context for when to use it (filtering venues by city, guest count, keywords, purpose) and explicitly routes to get_place for details and photos. It does not state exclusions or contrast against other siblings like list_place_selections, so it stops short of a full when/when-not.

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