describe_venue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read of venue metadata but does not explicitly say it is read-only, whether it errors for unknown venues, or what the response structure looks like.

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 short and front-loads the returned fields without wasted words. However, it is a sentence fragment rather than an action-oriented statement, which slightly weakens clarity despite the brevity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no documented parameters, the description leaves important gaps. It tells the agent what venue attributes are involved but not what it receives, whether the call is safe, or how to supply the required venue argument 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 0%, and the sole parameter 'venue' has no type description beyond being a string. The example 'office_floor' gives a hint about the expected identifier format, but the description does not name the parameter, explain how to obtain valid values, or clarify whether it is a name, ID, or path.

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 enumerates the venue attributes returned (floor size, wall count, attenuation, beacon positions), which makes the resource clear. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb and does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves or describes a venue, leaving the action implicit from the name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, what it requires, or how it relates to any sibling tool. The sibling list is about scenarios and runs rather than venue metadata, so there is little opportunity for confusion, but the description still provides no usage context.

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