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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by clarifying the result domain ('venue records, not tickets') and the price-question exclusion. It does not discuss limit/pagination behavior, but that is minor given the limit parameter and output schema.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then scope, then the exclusion. No filler; every clause carries routing or scope 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?

With an output schema, rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description only needs to supply routing and scope — which it does fully. An agent has everything required to select and invoke this correctly.

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 all five parameters are already documented, including the city/metro synonym notes. The description loosely echoes the searchable facets (name, city, area) but adds no syntax, format, or disambiguation beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('search venues') and immediately bounds the resource: venue records from the XP marketplace catalog, not tickets. This clearly separates it from siblings like search_events and get_venue_details.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions with concrete example phrasings ('venues near me', 'arenas in Brooklyn') plus a named exclusion and the alternative to use instead (get_ticket_listings). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated.

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