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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior context: the return is grouped by table with unseated guests included, and entities are rendered as '[table 3]' and '[id 12]' cross-references. It says nothing about ordering, pagination or size limits for large weddings.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by the identifier notation and then the alternative tools. No sentence is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does: per-table grouping, unseated guests included, and the '[table 3]' / '[id 12]' rendering convention. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, 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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter moment_id is documented in the schema itself as 'A seated moment; leave out for every seated moment.' The description reinforces sense of the argument by framing the plan as belonging to a moment, but adds no format, ID-source or defaulting detail beyond that.

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 names a specific resource and scope: 'The seating plan of a moment with fixed seats (usually the dinner)' and enumerates exactly what is returned: 'every table with who sits there, and who still needs a seat.' Combined with the named mutation siblings, an agent can distinguish this read tool from add-seating-table, seat-guest and unseat-guest without opening any schema.

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 explicitly routes reads to this tool and mutations to 'add-seating-table, seat-guest and unseat-guest', and the schema note 'leave out for every seated moment' clarifies the no-argument scope. It stops short of stating exclusions, such as moments without fixed seats, other than the parenthetical 'usually the dinner'.

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