get_venue_context

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses that venue keys are opaque hashes, that the context view drops duplicated venue blocks and full histogram, and that the requested year is always included. This adds meaningful behavioral detail.

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 and every sentence provides useful information, with the key format and view modes clearly explained. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers key sourcing, view differences, and year inclusion. The output schema presumably documents return fields, so it's not necessary to explain them. Minor ambiguity in 'agent-oriented context' and lack of explicit year range, but overall complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well: it explains venue_key_or_url format and how to find it, and details view options. Year gets partial treatment as 'optionally scoped to a year' but lacks explicit type/range, though schema provides the type.

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 it fetches agent-oriented context for a Lacuna venue, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on venue context, and provides guidance on venue keys.

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?

It explains how to obtain the venue key via search_lacuna and recommends the 'context' view, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool pointers beyond that.

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