get_venue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of describing behavior. It implies a read-only operation and lists the returned fields, which is adequate for a simple getter. However, it does not mention potential errors, not-found behavior, or authentication expectations, leaving minor transparency gaps.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then quickly lists the key returned attributes. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 getter with an output schema present, the description sufficiently conveys the lookup style and the data covered. It does not mention when to prefer a listing sibling, but that gap is more about usage guidance and does not hinder correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It reinforces that venue_id is the lookup key and that it returns the venue's details, but it adds no format, constraints, or deeper semantics. For a single self-descriptive parameter named venue_id, this is acceptable but not enriching.

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 verb ('Retrieve'), a resource ('details of a venue'), and the scope ('by venue ID'), and even enumerates the returned fields (address, capacity, coordinates). This clearly separates get_venue from sibling tools like create_venue, update_venue, and list_organization_venues.

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 'by venue ID' phrasing establishes the clear use case: when you already have a venue_id and need a single venue's details. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_organization_venues for listing all venues, but the singular-by-ID framing makes the correct selection obvious.

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