get_venue_hub

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns metadata and a URL, and imposes a sample-size constraint. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. Given the lack of annotations, the description adds moderate value but lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that pack in the purpose, content examples, a usage constraint, and a pointer to another tool. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it lists the kind of data returned, a usage constraint, and how to get the required slug. It could be slightly more explicit about the output format or whether the metadata is structured, but it is adequate for an agent to make an informed decision.

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 schema has one parameter 'venueSlug' with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaningful context by stating 'Use list_fixtures to find venue slugs', informing the agent how to obtain valid parameter values. This goes beyond the schema and compensates well for the lack of schema-level parameter 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 the tool returns 'Venue metadata + canonical URL for the full hub page' and lists specific content like par 1st-innings score, toss-decision split, etc. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings, especially since no other venue-specific tool exists.

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 mentions a 'Sample-size floor: ≥3 fixtures', which tells the agent the tool requires data from at least 3 fixtures to provide meaningful results. It also directs users to 'Use list_fixtures to find venue slugs', offering practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or list alternative tools for different needs.

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