send_venue

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

With annotations indicating readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, the tool is clearly a write operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as side effects, required permissions, or message delivery behavior. It fails to mention that this sends a visual venue card to a chat, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 quite short and free of fluff, which is concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful for a tool with 17 parameters. It is a complete sentence but lacks structural detail or front-loaded key information, so it does not earn its place effectively.

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 complexity (17 parameters, no output schema, low schema description coverage), this one-liner is severely incomplete. It provides no information about return values, side effects, or operational context. An agent would be unable to correctly invoke or understand the tool's behavior from this description alone.

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 only 18%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain any of the 17 parameters, including required fields like chat_id, latitude, longitude, title, and address. Since the schema itself is sparse, the description offers zero semantic help with parameter meaning.

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 clear verb ('Send') and resource ('information about a venue'), but it is vague about what sending a venue actually entails. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like send_location, and could be interpreted as sending a text description rather than a geopinned venue message. Tautology is avoided, but specificity is lacking.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like send_location or send_message. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.

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