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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds useful context: execution is synchronous, the output is internal state for orchestration, and it instructs the agent on how to present results (e.g., suggest next action). This goes beyond the structured fields and helps the agent behave correctly with the returned data.

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?

The description is moderately sized and front-loaded with the tool name, but it includes several instruction-like sentences that could be considered general communication guidance. It is not overly verbose, but some content feels like boilerplate rather than tool-specific information.

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?

Given its simplicity (read-only, two optional params, output schema present), the description should clearly explain what a 'seat' is and how to use the parameters. Instead, it focuses on response handling and leaves the core semantics ambiguous. The cryptic 'Task support: forbidden' adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 schema has two optional parameters (seatId, seatName) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention these parameters at all, leaving the agent without any guidance on what they mean, when to provide them, or how they affect the result. This is a significant gap.

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 states 'get current seat' which is a clear verb+resource pair, and adds that it returns internal application state. However, it does not explain what a 'seat' is, nor does it distinguish this tool from similar siblings like leanriq_current_seat or list_accessible_seats. The purpose is understandable but ambiguous.

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?

The description provides response-formatting rules such as 'Use assistantSummary first' and 'Never display raw JSON', but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or what problem it solves in the workflow. The 'Task support: forbidden' line is cryptic and not actionable.

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