sendVenue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the success behavior: 'On success, the sent Message is returned,' which tells the agent what to expect. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or that sending is a side-effecting operation beyond the obvious 'Send' verb. This is a modest but not comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 two short sentences with no filler. 'Send information about a venue' immediately states the purpose, and 'On success, the sent Message is returned' adds the key outcome. Every word earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 19 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, yet the description provides only a minimal purpose statement and a return note. It lacks usage context, behavioral depth, and differentiation from similar sending tools. For a tool of this complexity, the description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, with every parameter already having a meaningful description in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the general notion of 'information about a venue.' Since the schema handles parameter semantics, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Send information about a venue.' This is clear and distinct from generic messaging, but it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings like sendLocation or sendContact, which also send location-like content. The resource 'venue' is inherently distinctive but the description leaves the differentiation to the agent's inference.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sendLocation, sendMessage, or sendContact. There is no explicit context, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools. The only implied usage is derived from the tool name and the phrase 'information about a venue,' which is insufficient for choosing among the many send-* siblings.

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