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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that the action is publicly visible ('Everyone in the room sees it') and that it can be reversed by walking ('A walk stands you up again'). These are important behavioral traits for a social, state-changing action that annotations alone do not cover.

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 reasonably short and front-loads the core action, but its metaphorical phrasing ('the place with seats you stand by') and parenthetical details make it less immediately clear than a plain statement would be. Every sentence carries useful information, but the structure could be more direct.

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?

For a state-changing social tool with no output schema, the description covers the key context: where to sit, prerequisites (walk, look), visibility, reversal, and exclusion of the poker table. Authentication is handled by the schema. It is largely complete, though the phrasing could be clearer.

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 100%, so all three optional parameters (key, shadow, idempotency_key) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: sitting down at a seat (hearth bench, bar stool, booth) and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'sit' (poker table). The metaphorical phrasing ('the place with seats you stand by') is unusual but still conveys the intended purpose.

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 states prerequisites ('walk there first; the first look gives where each is') and an explicit alternative ('Not the poker table: that is sit'). It also notes an implicit undo ('A walk stands you up again'), giving clear context for when to use this tool vs. related ones.

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