get_venue_details

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the data fields returned (ratings, hours, tips, photos) but omits side effects (likely read-only), authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior on invalid ID. Acceptable for a simple lookup but could be more explicit.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states purpose and contents, second provides practical source for the parameter. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter source adequately. Could mention output format or error handling but is sufficient for typical use.

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?

Only one parameter (venue_id) with 100% schema coverage. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining where to find the ID ('included in check-in data'), aiding the agent in understanding how to obtain the required parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a venue', listing included fields (ratings, hours, tips, photos). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_checkins which focus on check-ins.

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?

States that venue IDs come from check-in data, providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use or list alternatives, though this is implicitly clear from the tool's name and siblings.

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