eb_org_venues

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, and the description's 'List' is consistent with that. The description adds that the output includes name, address, and geo, which is helpful context. However, it does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no venues exist, so the added value beyond annotations is modest.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'List' and provides key details without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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-only list tool with a complete input schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is adequate. It specifies the return fields (name, address, geo) and implies pagination via the continuation parameter in the schema, even though it doesn't explicitly mention pagination 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters: org_id and continuation, with complete coverage (100%). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'an organization's saved venues' with the fields name, address, and geo. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like eb_venue (a single venue) and eb_org_events (events for an org).

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 clearly implies this tool is for listing saved venues for a specific organization, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5. The schema further hints the org_id comes from eb_my_organizations, but this is outside the description.

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