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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: address fields are redacted to only your own seat unless you own the campaign, which tells the agent to expect partial data depending on permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence packs the returned fields and the visibility caveat with no preamble. The trailing 'Returns: The seats.' is pure filler that earns no place, which keeps it from 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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by naming the fields returned. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented single parameter, only the visibility semantics for addresses is stated tersely rather than fully explained.

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 is only one parameter and the schema documents it fully (slug or id), so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description never references the campaign argument or clarifies slug-vs-id handling beyond the schema, adding no meaning on top of it.

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 enumerates exactly what a seat record contains (name, colour, GM flag, seated flag, linked wiki page) plus a visibility rule, so an agent knows this lists campaign seats with their attributes. The verb is only implied through the name/title rather than stated ('Everybody at the table...'), and siblings like get_my_seat and get_party are not named, so differentiation is partial rather than explicit.

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 implied: use this to enumerate all seats in a campaign, as opposed to get_my_seat for a single seat. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and the closely related siblings (get_my_seat, get_party, list_characters) are never mentioned as alternatives.

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