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

Annotations already declare it is non-readonly, non-destructive, closed-world, and non-idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context about keeping groups together, separating specified people, and returning table assignments plus a shareable chart, though it does not clarify persistence or side effects of generation.

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 four tight sentences, front-loading purpose and usage before alternatives. Every sentence carries useful information without repetition.

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?

It covers purpose, usage, and output nature, and an output schema exists, but the low schema description coverage means the description should do more to explain the optional seating parameters. It is adequate but incomplete for a 7-parameter tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is very low, so the description must compensate. It mentions names, optional group labels, and keep-apart pairs, but omits key parameters such as table_count, seats_per_table, fill_strategy, keep_together, and head_table_names, leaving most optional inputs unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("generate seating chart" for wedding guests) and clearly states the core grouping constraints. It also distinguishes this from floor-plan layout and RSVP tracking tools, so an agent can identify it immediately.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it (guest list needing table assignments) and when not to use it, naming plan_reception_layout for floor plans and excluding RSVP tracking. This is strong routing guidance with alternatives.

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