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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description adds behavior the annotations cannot: identity is resolved from the connection binding rather than parameters, so results are caller-specific and not parameterizable. It also documents the failure mode ('this key is not bound to a seat') and the recovery step, which is exactly the kind of context that prevents an agent from misreading an empty result as an error.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the identity-resolution rule, then the error path — no filler. The final clause ('then this same connection is your identity') is slightly circuitous, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates the return fields and explains the identity source and the not-bound case. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or interpret an empty answer 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, and the description reinforces this by stating the tool is 'never from arguments' — preempting any attempt to pass a user id or seat id. It adds the meaning an empty schema cannot convey: the implicit identity argument is the connection binding itself.

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 verb+resource ('Who YOU are on this organization's chart') and enumerates the returned fields: seat id, name, role, escalation path, peers, and KPIs. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_people (all people) and list_my_kpis (KPI subset), so an agent can route correctly 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?

It states the selection condition explicitly ('Resolved from this connection's bound identity, never from arguments'), which tells the agent not to pass filters and why this differs from argument-driven lookups. It also gives a concrete fallback path: if the key is not bound to a seat, call register_agent, which directly disambiguates against the register_agent and claim_seat siblings.

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