list_venues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination and default/max limit. It does not explicitly state it's read-only, but the listing nature implies that. Could be improved by noting rate limits or response format, but it's adequate.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states core functionality, second sentence adds use case. Information is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and use case. It explains pagination and missing data filters. It could mention ordering or response structure, but for a list tool this is sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping filters under 'missing data' and explicitly mentioning examples like 'missing address, coordinates, social URLs, etc.', which complements the schema descriptions.

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 'List venues with pagination and optional filters for missing data' and specifies the enrichment use case. It distinguishes from siblings like list_artists by focusing on venue-specific missing data filters.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to find venues that need enrichment', providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like search_venue, but the context is sufficient for a list tool.

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