get_seat_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned facets (occupancy, holder session, lease, handover brief), which implies a side-effect-free read, but says nothing about authorization needs, behavior for an unknown/expired seat, or whether the lease/handover fields can be null.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, that packs in the four returned facets without a wasted word.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields in the description is exactly the right compensation. Only minor gaps remain (error/empty-seat behavior), so it is nearly complete.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema documenting seat_id including an example ('domain:cli'). The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier's format or scope, so the baseline 3 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?

Specific verb (Check) plus resource (seat) and an explicit enumeration of what is inspected: occupancy, holder session, remaining lease, handover brief. That distinguishes it from the mutating siblings claim_seat/release_seat, though it never names a sibling or contrasts itself with list_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 read-only inspection framing implies when this is useful (before claiming or releasing a seat), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to alternatives such as list_seats for bulk status. Usage is left to inference.

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