list_venues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, etc. The description adds context: 'Read-only static manifest — does NOT need the Signer gateway to be reachable.' This provides useful behavioral insight beyond annotations without 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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose and key differentiators. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and usage context. It mentions the returned fields, which is sufficient even without a structured output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters (100% schema coverage by default), so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate as none exist.

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 venues the Signer can sign trades for, specifies the output fields (venue id, asset class, auth scheme), and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it's a read-only static manifest that doesn't need the Signer gateway to be reachable.

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?

Explicitly advises to 'Call this first to discover what's signable' and notes the tool doesn't require the Signer gateway, implying safe usage even if gateway is down. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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