get_venue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does deliver the key behavioral fact: the call requires an Authorization: Bearer PERSONAL_OAUTH_TOKEN header. It also confirms this is a pure read (Retrieve) and enumerates the returned fields, though it says nothing about 404/precondition behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then clearly labeled ENDPOINT, VENUE FIELDS, and AUTHENTICATION sections. The field list is longer than strictly necessary but earns its place as a stand-in for the absent output schema; no filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully supplies the return shape (id, name, address, age_restriction, capacity, latitude, longitude), a domain note that venues are grouped by Organization, and the auth requirement. It is nearly sufficient; only error/not-found behavior and the exact ID format are missing.

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 already 100% for the single venue_id parameter, so the schema fully documents the input's format expectation. The description adds no extra semantics about the identifier (e.g., whether it is the numeric ID or a slug) beyond restating the field list of the entity, which is response data, not parameter guidance. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Retrieve a Venue by ID') plus the exact endpoint GET /venues/{venue_id}/, so the agent knows precisely what this does and that it is a single-resource fetch rather than a list.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and the 'by ID' phrasing; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_venues or what happens when the ID is unknown. A capable agent can infer the singleton-vs-list split, but nothing in the text routes it.

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