search_venues

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 discloses some traits (apps defaults to all, limit is 'per provider'), but lacks information on permissions, pagination, rate limits, error handling, or how conflicting address and latitude/longitude inputs are resolved. This is insufficient for a search tool with 8 parameters.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is structured clearly with one line per parameter, each accompanied by a practical example. No redundant content or unnecessary detail is present.

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 description covers the search semantics and most parameters, and the output schema handles return values. However, it lacks usage guidelines and omits explicit mention of the latitude/longitude parameters. For a tool with this complexity, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for query, address (including 'lat,lon' format), apps, free_delivery, min_rating, and limit with examples. However, latitude and longitude are only implied through 'or provide latitude+longitude' and are not explicitly named, leaving a minor gap.

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 tool's function: 'Searches for restaurants matching the query' with a concrete example ('pizza'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_items (items) and get_venue_menu (menus), making the resource and verb specific.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of using search_items for item-level searches or list_providers for provider discovery. The parameter explanations imply usage but do not state exclusions or preferred contexts.

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