List selectable venues/backgrounds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Browse' reasonably implies a read-only operation, and the connection to images.venue adds practical context. However, it does not disclose response shape, ordering, or other list behavior beyond the limit parameter already documented in the schema.

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?

One short sentence delivers the key information: the action, the resource, and the downstream purpose. There is no filler, and the most important context is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter optional-parameter list tool, the description is functionally sufficient: agents know what to call, why, and how the result is used. It lacks explicit return-shape information, but no output schema exists and the schema already documents the limit parameter.

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%: the only parameter, limit, is already described as 'Max results (default 20).' The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the high-coverage baseline applies.

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 clear verb and resource: it browses the catalog of venues/backgrounds. It also ties the tool to a concrete use case, 'to use as images.venue in create_generation,' which clarifies its role. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: before calling create_generation, to select a valid venue. It does not provide explicit exclusions or name alternative sibling tools, but the integration hint is sufficient for a simple list operation.

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