Search Untappd venues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are matches containing venue id, category, and location, but it restates 'Read-only' without adding further behavioral context like matching semantics, rate limits, or empty-result behavior. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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: action, resource, output, and next step in three short sentences. It is highly readable, though 'Read-only' duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and does not earn its place when annotations are available.

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 two-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what to search, what the response contains (venue id, category, location), and the next step to get full detail. The schema already handles parameter constraints such as limit range and default.

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 100%, with both query and limit documented (including min/max and default). The description reinforces that query means a venue name and that the result includes a venue id, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('venues'), and scope ('by name'), and clarifies venue types in parentheses (bars, breweries, restaurants). It also names the key output fields (venue id, category, location), which makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling search tools like untappd_search_beer and untappd_search_brewery.

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 frames when to use this tool: when you need to find a venue by name. It also provides a concrete follow-up path by saying to feed the returned venue id into untappd_venue_info for full detail. It does not explicitly list exclusions such as beer or brewery searches, but the context is clear enough.

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