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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds real value beyond that by defining what the result set is (catalog venue records, not tickets) and what it is not for, which prevents the most likely misuse. It says nothing about pagination or result volume beyond the schema's limit field.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, followed by output scope and then the exclusion. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed, and the description covers source, scope, and the key sibling routing. The one gap is that get_venue_details, which an agent would call after finding a venue, is never referenced despite both tools being in the sibling set.

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%, including synonym hints for city/metro and state format, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only echoes the query dimensions (name, city, area) without adding filtering semantics such as how city and metro interact. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("find a venue by name, city, or area") and pins the scope ("venue records from the XP marketplace catalog — not tickets"). It explicitly separates itself from get_ticket_listings, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 concrete trigger utterances ("venues near me", "arenas in Brooklyn") plus an explicit negative case: do not use for ticket prices once the event is known, call get_ticket_listings instead. Both the when and the when-not are named with an alternative.

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