get_venue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'detailed info' including 'all reviews, scores, and signals,' which adds some context about the return format. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which are significant gaps for a tool with no 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed info for a specific venue') and adds specific details ('including all reviews, scores, and signals') without any waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and every part 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and return content but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. Without an output schema, it partially explains return values, but more completeness would require addressing missing aspects like safety or alternatives.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'venueId' clearly documented as 'The venue's ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 purpose: 'Get detailed info for a specific venue' with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('venue'), and it distinguishes from siblings like 'list_venues' by focusing on a single venue. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_reviews' or 'submit_review' in terms of scope, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_venues' for multiple venues or 'list_reviews' for reviews alone. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name and description alone.

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