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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful scoping context like 'canonical profile', 'graph context', and 'does not enumerate', but does not disclose return format, pagination, or how filters behave. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the use condition and key input constraints. There is no filler, and every clause adds information relevant to selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

Given no output schema and zero property-level schema descriptions, this tool needs more context to be fully usable. It explains how to identify a venue but does not clarify the meaning of date, city, and limit parameters or what 'graph context' and 'upcoming events' return exactly. It is minimally usable for the id/query path but incomplete for richer queries.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It usefully clarifies that 'id' or 'query' can be passed and that query is a name query, but leaves 'city', 'limit', 'date_from', and 'date_to' entirely unexplained, which is a significant gap for a 6-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: returning a canonical venue profile, graph context, and upcoming events. It also distinguishes itself from enumeration-style siblings by explicitly noting it does not enumerate the venue catalog, giving the agent a concrete understanding of the resource and scope.

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?

The description opens with an explicit 'Use this when...' trigger and clarifies the two acceptable input modes: id or a name query. It implies a constraint against catalog enumeration but does not name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

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