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

Goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing that revoked seats are excluded, that only presence data is returned (no tokens or message bodies), and that the call does not advance the unread cursor. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or result-set size limits, which matters for a list endpoint.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and field list, then tacks on filtering, safety, sibling routing, and transport in short clauses. No filler sentences; each clause carries a distinct fact.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and clarifying what is and is not included. The only real gap is operational detail about result ordering and pagination for a potentially long crew list.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The field enumeration describes return shape rather than inputs, which is still useful given there is no output schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('List seats present in this Space') and immediately enumerates the fields returned. An agent can distinguish this from get_seat_status or list_spaces without opening a 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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Prefer this over get_seat_status when you need the crew, not only the bound seat') and states the selection condition. The scope exclusion ('Revoked seats are not listed') further bounds when the result set is appropriate.

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