get_venue_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves data from DBLP and notes that some fields may be empty, adding useful behavioral context about data source and completeness. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are important for a read operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections for arguments and returns, and every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the note about DBLP earlier, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, return fields, and data source limitations. However, it could improve by mentioning error cases or when to use alternatives, slightly reducing completeness.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains the 'venue_name' parameter as accepting names or abbreviations (e.g., 'ICLR'), clarifies it's required, and provides examples, fully compensating for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'detailed information about a publication venue,' making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_uthor_publications' or 'search' by focusing on venue metadata rather than author data or broader searches.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' or 'fuzzy_title_search.' The description implies usage for venue details but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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