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

The description goes beyond annotations by listing failure cases (AUTH_REQUIRED, SEAT_ACCESS_DENIED), noting the output is internal application state for orchestration, and providing instructions about using assistantSummary and not displaying raw JSON. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false 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 well-structured with labels (Purpose, Output, Constraints, Failure cases, etc.) but is somewhat verbose, including user-communication style instructions (e.g., 'Never display raw JSON'). These are useful but could be more condensed. Still, every section earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully covers purpose, output, failure modes, usage guidance, and constraints. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 zero parameters (coverage 100% vacuously). The description mentions that a seat can be 'passed' when needed, which aligns with the tool's purpose but does not add parameter-level detail since there are none. Baseline 4 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's verb+resource: 'show the currently active LeanrIQ seat' for the authenticated user. It also specifies the output (active seat and allowed seat list), distinguishing it from siblings like get_current_seat and list_accessible_seats.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: when a seat needs to be selected or passed to force a workspace, when a write is requested, or when disambiguation is needed. It also mentions that exact-ID read tools can resolve seats server-side, giving context on alternatives.

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