mkt_channel_venues

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

With no annotations supplied, the description does carry the safety profile by declaring the tool read-only, and it discloses the fields each venue record exposes (audience, postability, signal density, competition, risk). It says nothing about pagination, result volume, auth requirements, or rate limits, so the behavioral picture is only partially filled in.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the read-only library framing followed by examples and returned attributes. Nothing is redundant, though the parenthetical list of venue kinds is slightly heavy for the space.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description usefully explains what each entry contains, which is the main thing an agent needs. The unresolved gap is the undocumented 'platform' parameter and the absence of any routing hint toward sibling channel tools.

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 0% and the single optional 'platform' parameter is never mentioned in the description. The listed venue types hint that platform may be a filter, but the agent gets no statement that the parameter filters, no accepted values, and no behavior when it is omitted.

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 names a specific resource and its granularity: a read-only library of concrete venues (subreddit/Slack/newsletter/conferences), plus the attributes each entry carries. It is clearly distinct in wording from generic channel tools, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling mkt_channels or mkt_channel_plan.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative despite mkt_channels and mkt_channel_plan being close neighbors. The only hint is the word 'read-only' implying a lookup rather than a mutation.

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