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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive/idempotent annotations, the description explicitly states synchronous execution, 'task support: forbidden', and that the returned JSON is internal application state. It provides detailed output-handling rules (don't expose raw JSON, use assistantSummary, concise human language, suggest next action). No contradiction with annotations.

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 longer than minimal but front-loaded with the purpose and safety classification. The later sentences cover critical output-handling rules and are not waste, though some classification details repeat annotation information. No structural clutter.

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?

The description conveys operation type, safety, execution, and output handling, and an output schema exists. However, it omits parameter semantics and the relationship to sibling tools, leaving gaps for a tool with optional seat parameters and similar seat-related tool names.

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 input schema has two optional parameters (seatId, seatName) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions them or their purpose. The agent receives no guidance on whether or how to set them, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'get current user', a specific verb+resource, and the title matches. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_current_seat or leanriq_current_seat, but the user/seat distinction is inferable. It lacks detail on what 'current user' encompasses.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative selection guidance is provided. The description mentions 'Use assistantSummary first' and 'suggest the next best LeanrIQ action', but these are response-formatting directives, not tool selection criteria. It does not tell the agent when to prefer this over get_current_seat or list_accessible_seats.

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