afl_venues_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the return format but does not disclose pagination behavior, default page size, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The example output gives useful structure but lacks operational details.

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 with one sentence and a return format example. Every word serves a purpose, though it could be slightly improved by structuring the return format as a bullet list.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description omits essential context about pagination and parameter usage. While it provides the return structure and a venue count, it is incomplete for an agent to use effectively without inferring semantics.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain the 'page' and 'pageSize' parameters. Despite their defaults, no semantic meaning is added, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from names alone.

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 it lists venues, includes a count (191), and specifies the fields returned (location, state, timezone, landOwner). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like afl_venue_get by indicating it is a list operation.

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 by stating it lists venues, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like afl_venue_get. No exclusions or context for choosing this tool.

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