setlist_search_venues

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint: true; the description adds important behavioral context about attribution requirements (followable links, nofollow prohibition, fallback URL). It does not detail pagination or rate limits, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 only three sentences: first states the core action, second gives usage flow, third details attribution. Every sentence is essential and no filler. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 purpose, connection to other tools, and attribution rules. It mentions that results include a venue ID and url, but does not describe the full return structure (e.g., array of results, other fields). Given no output schema, slightly more detail on the response format would be helpful, but it's still mostly 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for all 7 fields. The description does not add new semantic information beyond referencing search by name and/or location, which is already implied by the schema. So the description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 searches for venues by name and/or location and returns venue IDs. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning integration with setlist_get_venue and setlist_get_venue_setlists, making its role in the workflow obvious.

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 tells when to use the tool (when you need to find a venue to then pass its ID to get_venue or get_venue_setlists) and provides attribution guidelines. It does not explicitly compare to other search tools like setlist_search_artists, but the context is sufficient.

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