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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: only published venues are returned, and estimates are explicitly not supplier quotes or live availability, which prevents the agent from misrepresenting the data. It still omits the failure mode for a missing/unpublished slug.

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 with what is returned, followed by the one caveat an agent most needs. Every clause earns its place with no restatement of the title.

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 describing the return payload and does so concretely, including the provenance character of the sourced facts. The only gap is error/edge behavior for unpublished or nonexistent slugs.

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 slug parameter, and the schema already states it uniquely identifies a published Aisle venue. The description adds no format, casing or sourcing detail beyond that, so the 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 (returns) and resource (a published wedding venue, keyed by slug) and enumerates the payload: photos, highlights, travel information, planning estimates and sourced facts. It is clearly distinguishable from search_venues in kind, but it never names the sibling lookup it is paired with (e.g. search_venues to obtain the slug, or get_vendor_details for the vendor equivalent).

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: 'by its slug' and 'published' hint that the caller must already hold a valid slug from a prior search, but the description never says to use search_venues first, nor what to do when the venue is unpublished or the slug is unknown. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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