afl_venue_get

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

The description adds the return structure '{venues:[{id, providerId, name, location, state, timezone}]}' and 'Auth: none needed', which are behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations. It does not disclose error cases or rate limits, but for a simple read tool, it is sufficient. 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?

The description is concise: three short sentences covering purpose, return format, and auth. Every sentence adds information, with no filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly lists the return fields, making the output contract clear. With one well-documented parameter and annotations covering safety, this is complete for the tool's complexity. The auth note and return format fill the gaps.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for the single parameter, including its source and URL path mention. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating 'by id', so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states 'Get a single venue by id' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling afl_venues_list and other getters by focusing on a single venue. The return format is also included, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by matching the parameter description 'from afl_venues_list', indicating the venueId comes from a prior list call. There is no explicit alternative or exclusion, but for a simple get-by-id tool, this is clear enough context. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so not a 5.

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