pws_get_venues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description need not repeat those. It adds no further behavioral details such as pagination, return format, or rate limits, but it is consistent with the 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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the verb and resource while adding a useful contextual phrase.

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 has 8 optional parameters and no output schema, so the description is the only guidance. It provides a high-level purpose but lacks parameter-level details and return value expectations, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It maps broad filter categories (name, geography, type, capacity) to most params, including search, region/country/continent, type, and min/maxCapacity, but omits limit and gives no value formats or constraints.

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 states the tool browses venues using specific filter dimensions (name, geography, type, capacity) and situates it in a workflow ('before assigning one to a show'), clearly distinguishing it from other get tools and search.

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 phrase 'before assigning one to a show' implies a clear use case and ties to a follow-up action (likely pws_set_show_venue). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops at clear context rather than full guidance.

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