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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses synchronous execution, 'Task support: forbidden', and that the returned JSON is 'internal application state' for orchestration. It also prescribes response formatting rules, adding useful context that is consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 buries the core purpose under repeated classifications and imperative formatting directives. Phrases like 'Classification: read-only' and 'Execution: synchronous' duplicate what annotations already express, making it longer than necessary.

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 output schema covers return values, and annotations cover safety, but the description omits usage/selection criteria and parameter semantics. It does add valuable orchestration context, but key gaps remain.

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 description does not mention seatId or seatName, and the input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The optional filter parameters are unexplained, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the property names alone.

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 'list accessible seats' with a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list_* tools or clarify what 'accessible' means in this context.

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 guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_current_seat or list_advertisers. The only usage-related instructions concern response formatting ('Use assistantSummary first') and internal-state handling, not selection criteria.

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