Get Venue Details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a lookup-by-ID returning a fixed set of fields, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior for unknown IDs, or rate limits.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the identifying input and example return fields packed in without waste. Very efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and the single required param is fully documented. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it lacks any disambiguation from the many venue/checkin-related siblings.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Foursquare venue ID (from checkin data)'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies; with only 1 parameter this is adequate.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (venue details) scoped by venue ID, listing example fields (address, categories, URL). It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't contrast itself against siblings like get_checkin_detail or get_user_venue_history, which the agent might otherwise confuse given the venue-related naming.

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 implies usage — fetch details for a venue given its ID — but offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Given the crowded sibling set, a routing hint (e.g., vs. get_user_venue_history) would meaningfully help.

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