seatgeek_get_venue

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what a venue record contains, how an invalid ID is handled, or that an api_key may be needed. It is essentially a restatement of the tool name.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Appropriately sized for a one-lookup tool, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should ideally hint at what a venue record includes, and with 0% schema coverage on parameters it should clarify id format and api_key usage. For a simple single-record getter the gap is tolerable but real.

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 must compensate and it does not: the 'id' parameter's type/format is never explained, and the 'api_key' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving the agent no idea whether auth is required or how to supply it.

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 and resource (get a SeatGeek venue) and adds the lookup key ('by ID'), which distinguishes it from the sibling seatgeek_search_venues. It's clear but doesn't name or contrast with any sibling explicitly.

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 on when to use this versus seatgeek_search_venues (which presumably returns venue IDs in the first place) or versus tm_get_venue/eventbrite_get_venue. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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