seatgeek_get_venue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only implies a read operation but omits critical behavioral details such as authentication requirements (api_key), rate limits, or whether the ID is a SeatGeek internal ID.

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?

While the description is concise at one sentence, it sacrifices necessary information for brevity. Important details about parameters and usage are missing, making it less valuable than a slightly longer but more complete description.

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?

The tool is simple (get by ID), but the description fails to provide a complete picture. With no output schema or annotations, the description should at least clarify the ID type and authentication, which it does not.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what 'id' represents (e.g., type, source, format) or when 'api_key' is needed, leaving the agent with just the parameter names from the schema.

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 states 'Get a SeatGeek venue by ID,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it is essentially a direct restatement of the tool name and provides no additional context to distinguish it from similar tools like 'seatgeek_search_venues' or 'seatgeek_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention that searching for venues should use 'seatgeek_search_venues' instead, or that this tool requires a known ID.

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