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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description usefully adds what the caller receives (profile, graph context, upcoming events). However it says nothing about limit/pagination behavior or what happens with an ambiguous name query, so it is only adequate.

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 the trigger condition and followed by the input requirement and scope boundary. Nothing is wasted.

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 correctly covers the return contents, but the four undocumented parameters (limit, dates, city) leave real gaps for a 6-parameter lookup tool. Adequate but not thorough.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the critical id-or-query disjunction, but leaves city, limit, date_from, and date_to entirely unaddressed in both schema and description.

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 ('canonical venue profile, graph context, and upcoming events') plus a scope boundary ('does not enumerate the venue catalog'). It is distinguishable from catalog-listing siblings like find_scene_entities, though it never names a specific alternative.

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 a clear triggering condition ('when a user wants a canonical venue profile, graph context, and upcoming events') and an explicit exclusion ('does not enumerate the venue catalog'). No sibling is named as the alternative, so it falls short of a full 5.

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