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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Check' and 'live' imply a non-mutating, real-time lookup, but no explicit safety profile, auth requirements, or rate limits are stated. It does earn credit for enumerating the returned data fields, which partially substitutes for the missing 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key scope ('venue capacity suitability... in Gauteng') arrives immediately. It is dense with listed fields but every clause contributes information.

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 read tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the enumeration of returned data is necessary and present. However, all five parameters are optional, and the description never explains the behavior when called with no filters or how 'capacity suitability' is evaluated against guestCount.

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%, so the enums and examples are already documented. The description adds only the framing that lookup can be done either by specific venue or by celebration criteria, which is a modest value-add over the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('venue capacity suitability, catering rates, hire fees, layout options, quote availability') scoped to Gauteng, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_venue_details or check_quote_status, whose territory it partially overlaps.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'for a specific venue or celebration criteria' hints at the two lookup modes (slug/venueId vs. eventType/suburb/guestCount), but the agent is never told how this differs from find_venues, get_venue_details, or check_quote_status.

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