tm_get_venue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them – no mention of authentication requirements despite the api_key parameter, no rate-limit or openWorld request-cost context, no indication of error behavior for an unknown venue 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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

For an open-world HTTP lookup with two completely undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should at minimum cover ID format and the api_key parameter. As written, the agent has to infer nearly all calling details from the schema's bare types.

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 both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only hints that 'id' identifies a venue ('specific venue'); it says nothing about the ID format or about the api_key parameter's purpose and whether it is required or optional, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a specific Ticketmaster venue'), so the agent knows it's an ID-based single-resource lookup. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tm_search_venues, though the word 'specific' implies a known identifier rather than a query.

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 statement of when to use this versus tm_search_venues, seatgeek_get_venue, or eventbrite_get_venue. The only implied guidance is that a single specific venue is being fetched, which the agent must infer from the noun phrase rather than any explicit instruction.

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