venue_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the output (metadata + play count) but does not disclose error behavior, case sensitivity, or whether the venue parameter expects an exact match or partial. It also does not mention if the tool is read-only, though that is implied. For a simple info tool, more transparency about input format would be expected.

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 sentence that directly states what the tool does. It is perfectly concise with no filler, and the key information (venue metadata and play count) is front-loaded. It earns a top score for efficiency.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is minimally sufficient. It explains the purpose and the output. However, it lacks guidance on venue name format and does not clarify how this tool fits among the many siblings. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return structure, but the description is still thin for a tool that an agent may need to invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'venue' as the resource but does not add any detail about the parameter's format, required exactness, or examples. The schema only provides the name 'venue' as a string, and the description adds nothing beyond that. Given a single trivial parameter, a score of 2 reflects the lack of helpful clarification.

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 returns venue metadata and a play count for Goose at that venue. The verb 'has played' implies retrieval, and the resource 'venue' is specific. It distinguishes from siblings like album_info or song_history by focusing on venue-level data, though it could be more explicit about what 'metadata' includes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer venue_info over, say, show_extras or get_setlist, nor does it state any prerequisites like needing an exact venue name. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and description.

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