list_venue_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that status defaults to 'live', that continuation enables pagination, or whether the returned events are limited to upcoming/scheduled ones. For a tool with optional parameters that control behavior, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place by stating the core purpose in seven wordsched, but it is arguably minimal to a fault—conciseness is achieved by omitting valuable contextual detail.

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?

Even though an output schema existsaine, the absence of annotations and the 0% schema coverage leave important operational details undisclosed. The tool has three parameters including a pagination continuation and a status filter, yet the description addresses none of them. A simple list tool still needs to signal pagination and filtering behavior to be complete enough for an agent.

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 by explaining parameter meaning. It only implies venue_id ('specific venue') and says nothing about status or continuation. An agent encountering this tool cannot determine from the description how to filter by status or paginate through results.

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 uses a clear verb+resource construction: 'List events scheduled at a specific venue.' It identifies the core operation and the key qualifier (venue), which distinguishes it from broader event-list tools like list_organization_events or search_events. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like list_series_events or list_organization_events, so it misses the top score.

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 description implies when to use the tool—when you have a venue_id and need its events—but it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose. With many sibling event-list tools, this leaves the agent to infer the boundary between this and list_organization_events or search_events.

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