Get Venue

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds real behavioral detail: the 'context' view drops the duplicated venue block and full year histogram server-side, caps top authors, and always includes the requested year. It stops short of noting result-size limits or pagination, but the response-shaping behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a key-format warning, then a structured bullet list for the view enum. No filler sentences; each block maps to a decision the caller must make.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers everything else needed to call correctly: input format, key discovery path, view trade-off, and year semantics. Nothing material is missing.

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 carries the full burden and does: it explains the opaque-hash format and URL alternative for venue_key_or_url, defines both enum values of view with concrete content differences, and clarifies that year is always included in the recent-activity slice.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch agent-oriented context for a Lacuna venue') plus the optional scoping dimension (year). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_author_context, get_institution_context, and search_lacuna.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to obtain the required input ('find the key first via search_lacuna(search_type="venue") or pass a /venue/... page URL') and gives a clear when-to-use rule for each view, marking 'context' as default and recommended over 'full'.

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