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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral constraint the schema cannot: a hard cap of 6 seats shared across humans and agents. It omits what happens on a full table, whether the table must be unstarted, idempotency, and required authorization.

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 short sentences, action first, constraint second, with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 two-param state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimal but workable. It leaves the agent without failure-mode guidance (table full, table already started, character already seated) or any sense of what the call returns.

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 both parameters (tableId, characterId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the ownership nuance in "your character's id"; it gives no format, sourcing, or discovery hints (e.g., where to get tableId).

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?

A specific verb+resource: "Seat one of your characters at a table" makes the join action unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from ad_create_table and ad_list_tables, but never names ad_spectate_table, the closest sibling, so the agent must infer passive-vs-active participation.

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?

Usage is only implied: "one of your characters" hints that a character must exist first (ad_create_character) and that you are the owner. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus ad_spectate_table, nor any prerequisite or exclusion stated.

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