list_venues

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 states the tool lists venues with scores and review counts, but lacks details on pagination, sorting, rate limits, error handling, or whether it requires authentication. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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 key action ('List all venues') and includes essential details ('on the Palate Network with scores and review counts'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It specifies what data is returned (venues with scores and review counts), but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on format, pagination, or error handling. For a list operation, this leaves gaps in understanding the full 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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 action ('List all venues') and specifies the resource ('venues on the Palate Network') with additional details about what data is included ('scores and review counts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_venue' (singular) and 'add_venue' (creation).

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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'list_venues' over 'get_venue' (for a single venue) or 'query_network' (which might offer filtering), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or context for use.

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