eventbrite_get_venue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on auth (api_key is present but unexplained), no error behavior for an invalid venue_id, no hint about what fields come back.

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?

It is a single waste-free sentence, so it is concise, but conciseness here comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency — there is nothing to front-load because nothing substantive is said.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description should describe at least the return shape (name, address, coordinates) and the role of api_key. It leaves both entirely unaddressed for a two-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and fails: it never mentions venue_id (the sole required param) or api_key (untyped, undocumented). Nothing explains the expected format of a venue ID or whether api_key is required for authentication.

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 details') and a specific resource ('an Eventbrite venue'), which is clear enough to act on. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-identical siblings like tm_get_venue or seatgeek_get_venue, nor from eventbrite_get_event.

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 contains no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eventbrite_search_events or the venue tools from other providers. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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