send_venue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say the effect is posting a message into a chat, that chat_id is the delivery target, or anything about notification/protection behavior.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding or redundancy, so it is concise. However, that brevity comes at the cost of substance — the sentence is front-loaded only trivially because there is nothing behind it.

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 21-parameter, 5-required-parameter send operation with no output schema and low schema coverage, a one-line description is drastically incomplete. An agent cannot determine required inputs, delivery semantics, or interaction with reply/thread parameters from this definition.

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 description coverage is only 24% across 21 parameters, so the description carries the burden of compensating and does not. Nothing is said about latitude/longitude pairs, title/address pairing, or the numerous optional routing parameters (business_connection_id, message_thread_id, reply_markup), leaving most of the surface undocumented in both places.

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 verb and a resource ('Send ... a venue'), so the basic action is inferable, but 'information about a venue' is vague about the fact that it posts a venue message (name, address, coordinates) into a chat. It does nothing to distinguish this from siblings such as send_location, send_contact, or send_message, which also push content into a chat.

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 when-to-use guidance at all — no statement about when to pick send_venue over send_location, no mention of the chat_id target requirement, and no mention of the reply/thread context available in the parameters. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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