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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the return payload (descriptions, photos, listing links) and the scope limitation (no live availability, no bookings), which is meaningful additional context given there is no 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 tight sentences: scope first, then what you get back, then the boundary condition. No filler and nothing important is buried.

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-required-parameter, read-only search with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, result contents, and limitations adequately. Minor gaps remain around result volume/ordering and whether filters combine as AND, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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% and the enums for type and price_range are self-documenting, so the schema carries the burden. The description merely restates the same dimensions (country, venue type, capacity, price range) without adding syntax, defaulting, or combination semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Searches published destination wedding venues") and enumerates the four filter axes, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It never names the adjacent siblings (search_vendors, get_venue_details, list_venue_countries), so the separation is inferred from the name rather than stated.

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 carves out the negative case — "does not check live availability or make bookings" — which tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice. However, it never points to the alternative (e.g. get_venue_details for availability, search_vendors for non-venue vendors), so routing still requires inference.

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