list_venues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: it notes the operation is a GET, that a Bearer token is required, and that the response is paginated. However it omits pagination mechanics, rate limits, and any explicit read-only/reversibility statement, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 content is front-loaded with the purpose and broken into labeled sections (endpoint, response, auth) that are easy to scan. It is slightly over-structured for a one-parameter list tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, auth requirement, and pagination, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The main gap is that it never clarifies the distinction from the single-item get_venue sibling.

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?

There is a single parameter (organization_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it adequately. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about the parameter's format or role, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List Venues') scoped by organization, which is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling read tool get_venue or the write siblings create_venue/update_venue, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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 tool name and 'by Organization' phrasing imply you use it to enumerate an org's venues, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of alternatives like get_venue for a single venue, and no stated prerequisites for pagination or filtering.

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