get_seat_offerings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond by disclosing server-side auth injection, throttling to LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap, retry on 429/5xx, sort order, pagination defaults, and per-status error semantics (401/403/404/422). Nothing contradicts the 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 organized into labeled sections (Behavior, Parameters, Returns, Use when) and front-loads the safety badge and endpoint. The expanded error-code list is slightly verbose for a tool with one optional parameter, but each 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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, paging, sort order, auth, throttling, retries, and error behavior — the agent has everything needed to call it safely. Minor glitch: 'default limit of 20 users per page' appears to be a copy-paste from a user-oriented tool and should read 'seat offerings.'

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents `page` including its out-of-range clamping behavior. The description only adds 'walk them with `page`,' which reinforces pagination usage but adds no new semantic detail — the high-coverage baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Get all seat offerings. Returns a list of all seat offerings of the school,' with ordering and pagination made explicit. The '🟢 READ-ONLY · GET /v2/seats' header plus the named sibling tools distinguish it clearly from per-item and write operations.

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?

'Use when: safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting. Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool' provides an explicit when-to-use and a clear exclusion, and related seat tools are named. However, no decision rule separates it from the closely related get_specific_seat_offering (list vs single-item lookup).

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