seatgeek_search_venues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that - no mention of result limits, pagination, or that the search hits a live external index - so it contributes no behavioral value on top of annotations.

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 short sentence with zero padding, and the resource being acted on is front-loaded. Its brevity is a virtue structurally, even though the content is thin.

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 two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations covering parameters or return shape, the description should state query semantics and result behavior. It leaves the agent guessing about what a search matches and what comes back.

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, yet it never explains what "q" accepts (venue name? city? partial match?) or that api_key supplies authentication. The one-word 'Search' is the only clue about the required query parameter.

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 names a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("venues") scoped to SeatGeek, so an agent knows exactly what object type is returned. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling seatgeek_get_venue, leaving the search-vs-lookup split to inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus seatgeek_get_venue (direct lookup) or seatgeek_search_events, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is the free-text discovery path.

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