tm_search_venues

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behaviour, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of pagination, result caps, ranking, empty-result behaviour, or that an api_key parameter suggests credentialed access. With annotations doing the disclosure work, this is a thin add-on rather than a contradiction.

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, which is structurally clean. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — the one sentence carries almost no decision-relevant information for a four-parameter search tool.

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 a search endpoint with four optional parameters, zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition should say what can be filtered, what results look like at a high level, and whether paging exists. None of that is present, so an agent must guess at both filtering semantics and return shape.

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 is the only place semantics could be explained, and it explains none of the four parameters. 'Search' loosely implies keyword usage, but stateCode/countryCode formats (codes vs names), whether they combine as AND filters, and the role of api_key are all undocumented anywhere.

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 ('search for venues') scoped to a named provider ('on Ticketmaster'), which is clear enough to act on. It does not differentiate from near neighbours such as tm_get_venue (single venue details) or seatgeek_search_venues / venue searches from other providers, leaving sibling selection to inference from names.

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 alternatives: nothing says to call this to find a venue ID before tm_get_venue, or how it differs from tm_search_events or seatgeek_search_venues. The only implied usage is 'searching', which the agent already infers from the name.

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