seatcanvas

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

Adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: 'seeds the canvas', 'nothing saved until sign-in', 'read-only; deterministic'. Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive nature.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with key action and constraints. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Adequately describes the tool's purpose and side effects; output schema exists so return value explanation is unnecessary. Could briefly mention the link nature, but sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add new meaning or clarify usage beyond what schema provides, so baseline score applies.

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?

Clearly states it returns a link to a prefilled seating plan for given guest count and event type, distinguishing itself from siblings that estimate capacity or get pricing.

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?

Provides context: the link seeds a canvas and nothing is saved until sign-in, implying use for preview. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool references beyond sibling names.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds 'deterministic' and clarifies it returns a link. This is sufficient but could further describe what happens on invalid inputs (e.g., negative dimensions).

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence concisely captures the core functionality; the second adds safety context. Every word earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the description is nearly complete. It covers inputs, output (link), and safety. Minor gap: no mention of error behavior or limits on dimensions.

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 coverage is 100% with individual parameter descriptions. The tool description summarizes the role of venue dimensions and table type but does not add new semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('estimates') and resource ('seating capacity'), includes key inputs (width, height, table type), and distinguishes itself from siblings (seatcanvas_create_plan, seatcanvas_get_pricing) by focusing on estimation rather than creation or pricing.

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 purpose is clear but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like seatcanvas_create_plan (for actual plan creation) or seatcanvas_get_pricing (for cost). Users must infer from sibling names; an explicit guidance sentence would help.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' adds no new safety info. It does mention the optional locale but lacks details about response structure or side effects; however, the output schema covers the return format.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details. Every word contributes to understanding, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description fully captures the tool's purpose and basic constraints. No additional details are needed for this simple read-only 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the locale parameter fully described in the schema. The description repeats that the locale is optional and for response language, adding minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states the tool returns SeatCanvas pricing, specifying the free-tier seated-guest limit and Event Pass price. It distinguishes from sibling tools like seatcanvas_create_plan (writes) and seatcanvas_estimate_capacity (different read).

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 notes it is read-only and requires no inputs beyond an optional locale, clearly indicating when to use. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but the context of siblings and the read-only nature provides adequate guidance.

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