search_venues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (though 'limit' and 'offset' are in schema), rate limits, authentication requirements, or how results are ordered. The term 'search' is vague—does it support partial matches, exact matches, or full-text?

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 a single, concise sentence of 16 words. It front-loads the core action and lists essential filters efficiently. No redundant words or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is too minimal. It does not mention default behavior (e.g., city defaults to 'tokyo', limit 10), date format requirements, or result ordering. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of contextual detail about the search behavior.

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%, so the description should add meaning. It lists parameter names (city, date, area, genre, query, vip_booking_supported_only) but does not explain their semantics beyond the name. For instance, 'date' format is unspecified, 'query' is ambiguous (text in venue name?), and 'vip_booking_supported_only' is self-explanatory but not elaborated.

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 the verb 'Search', the resource 'nightlife venues', and lists key parameters (city, date, area, genre, query, VIP booking). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'search_events' and 'search_performers' by specifying the resource type.

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. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. For example, it does not differentiate from 'search_events' in terms of typical use cases.

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