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

Adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: when room dimensions are omitted the tool returns required space instead of a fit check — a different response mode that changes how the agent should interpret output. It also flags guest_count as mandatory while dimensions are not. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) are conservative for what is effectively a calculation tool, but the description does not contradict them outright, it simply under-describes persistence behavior.

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?

Front-loads the trigger phrase, keeps the exclusion clause last, and every sentence carries routing or behavioral information. The mid-sentence element list ('dance floor, bar, buffet, DJ or band, and head table') is slightly enumerative but usefully signals what the space calculation accounts for.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers the dual output modes and the required precondition. For an 11-parameter tool it leans on defaults and enums to fill gaps, but nothing critical for a correct first call is missing.

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 only 36%, so the description carries extra weight, and it does explain the required/optional split and the conditional output for the two room-dimension parameters. However, the eight other parameters — table_shape, seats_per_table, food_service, entertainment, bars, cake_table, head_table — get their meaning only from enum values and defaults in the schema, not from the description.

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?

States a concrete verb-plus-resource with three distinct capabilities (floor plan, table-count fitting, capacity check) and enumerates the elements it accounts for (dance floor, bar, buffet, DJ/band, head table). It also explicitly excludes ceremony seating and venue search, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'use this when' trigger, then a 'do not use for' clause that names a sibling (generate_seating_chart) as the alternative for name-based seating assignments. It also states the one precondition (guest count required) versus the optional room dimensions.

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