get_venue_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'Get' and describes the data returned, but does not mention idempotency, error behavior, authentication, or rate limits. It adds value by detailing the return structure but lacks deeper behavioral disclosure.

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 concise: three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose. The first explains what the tool does, the second gives usage context, and the third provides branding and user guidance. No redundant words or tautology.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is relatively complete: it explains what is returned, when to use it, and data source. It does not cover error cases or what happens if the venue is not found, but for a straightforward retrieval tool, it covers the essential contextual information well.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds context that 'venue_slug' comes from previous 'search_venues' results, but this is also implied in the schema description. Overall, the description provides marginal additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full detail page for a specific Eventflare venue,' listing exactly what is included (description, amenities, capacities, pricing, photos, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from its sibling tool 'search_venues' by noting it is used after that tool for deeper detail.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this after search_venues when the user wants more depth on one venue.' This provides clear context, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives beyond search_venues. Still, it offers solid usage guidance.

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