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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a non-schema behavioral detail — that each returned venue carries a grassroots|major scale — but omits pagination, completeness of results, auth needs, and return shape for what is otherwise an opaque list operation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and where, followed by a useful detail about the scale field. Minimal waste, though 'gigstamp tracks' is slightly awkward phrasing.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations are nearly sufficient, and it volunteers the shape of a returned attribute (scale). A note on result scope or pagination would make it fully complete.

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% with a single enumerated city parameter fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'supported city' phrasing echoes the schema's constraint without adding format or validation detail beyond it.

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 (List) and resource (venues) with clear scope: venues tracked in a supported city. It distinguishes itself from list_cities/get_gig/search_gigs_and_events by describing its returned entity and its grassroots/major scale, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 implied rather than stated: 'in a supported city' signals the required city scoping, and the required city enum makes the precondition inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs search_gigs_and_events or list_cities guidance, and no exclusions.

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