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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds significant behavioral context: explains each state meaning, notes that seat_broken parks the queue until human reconnection, and mentions 'today's headroom' which implies a daily limit check. This goes beyond the annotations and enriches agent understanding without contradiction.

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 pack the core purpose, state enumeration, and a crucial routing hint. No filler, information is front-loaded, and the read-only note is placed early. Very efficient.

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 status-check tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the states and the important 'browser flow' caveat. It might briefly clarify what 'headroom' means numerically, but the state list and overall behavior make the tool callable without ambiguity. Slightly short of perfect due to the implicit headroom definition.

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% for the single parameter playId, whose description is 'The play whose seat to check.' The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, 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?

States a specific verb+resource: checks the play's LinkedIn seat status and headroom. Clearly distinguishes from sibling actions like gtm_connect_linkedin by explicitly noting it is read-only and that connecting is a separate browser flow. The state list (no_seat, seat_broken, pending, classic, sales_navigator) provides concrete output expectations.

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?

Gives clear context: it is read-only and mentions that connecting a seat requires a human browser flow, effectively steering the agent away from using this tool for connection. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g., gtm_connect_linkedin) or provide a condition like 'use this when you need to check status'. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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