list_venues

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which already indicate a safe, read-only operation with dynamic data. The description adds only 'optional free-text search,' which is already implied by the schema. It does not disclose pagination, authorization, or other behavioral traits beyond 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?

The description is a single sentence of 9 words, front-loading the core purpose. It is concise but not overly terse; it includes the key optional parameter. No unnecessary information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers the use case. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema handles that.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'search' parameter, so the description compensates by labeling it as 'optional free-text search.' While this adds minimal meaning, it is the only parameter and the note is brief. The baseline for low coverage would require more depth, but the tool is simple.

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 clearly states the tool lists climbing gyms/venues, with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the optional free-text search parameter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_routes or list_challenges.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as list_routes or get_gym_rankings. There is no mention of prerequisites or alternative tools for different contexts.

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