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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing that this is 'non-commercial,' that there is 'never a cash deal,' and by outlining the standard offer (cooler, Founding Fifty codes, optional co-created content). It does not mention response format or possible routing limitations, but for a read-only info tool the key behaviors are transparent.

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 purposeful sentences: the first scopes the audience and program type, the second details the offer and the crucial sibling distinction. No wasted words, and the most decision-relevant contrast appears at the end for easy reference.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description covers what the program is, who it is for, what is offered, what is excluded, and how it differs from the nearest sibling tool. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly without further clarification.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on purpose and usage rather than inventing parameter details.

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 ('non-commercial partnership program') with a clear verb ('get... info'), names target audiences (fitness/sports communities, venues, press), and explicitly contrasts with get_b2b_wholesale. This makes it immediately distinguishable from its sibling tools.

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 states when to use this tool versus the key alternative: 'Distinct from get_b2b_wholesale, which is a paid commercial arrangement for venues.' This gives the agent a concrete decision rule between non-commercial partnership inquiries and paid commercial venue deals.

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