gryps_venue_quirks

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

No annotations are supplied, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, or authentication requirements. It implies a read operation but never explicitly confirms this, which is a gap given the lack of 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, well-structured sentence that conveys the purpose and key details without unnecessary verbosity. It front-loads the core concept and uses examples efficiently.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and filtering capabilities. However, it does not describe the response format or any pagination/ordering, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 description coverage is 50%, with venueId having an example in the schema and severity being an enum. The description adds the concept of filtering but does not elaborate on parameter format or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate given the moderate coverage.

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 it is a registry of dated, verified operational quirks with machine-actionable agent rules, and mentions filtering by venue and severity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like venue_liveness or funding. However, it does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'query' or 'retrieve'), slightly reducing clarity.

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 such as gryps_venue_liveness or gryps_get_funding. The description only states filtering options, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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