Search Espaciarte spaces

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation (safe read operation), the description discloses useful behavioral traits: results are paginated, location data is approximate/obfuscated, and the returned set is limited to public/published spaces. It also states the exact fields included in summaries. This adds valuable context beyond the annotation, though it does not cover potential edge cases like empty results or error responses.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the return fields. It avoids redundancy and every clause earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by specifying exactly what the returned summaries include (name, venue type, capacity, pricing, photos, location). It also notes pagination and obfuscated location. While the tool has 9 parameters, the 100% schema coverage handles parameter details. It does not mention ordering (e.g., by distance) or pagination mechanics, but the description is largely complete for a search tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description does not need to compensate. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and the description adds no extra 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching published spaces on Espaciarte around a geographic point with optional filters. It specifies the resource type (event venues, workspaces, studios) and the output (a paginated list of summaries). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_space_details, which presumably returns full details, by explicitly mentioning 'summaries'.

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 provides clear context for use: when searching for published spaces on Espaciarte by location and filters. It does not explicitly name the alternative get_space_details, but the phrase 'public space summaries' implicitly suggests that full details are available elsewhere. While it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, the scope ('published spaces', 'public') offers some exclusion criteria.

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