get_seat_offerings_that_user_is_member

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it states the operation creates/changes/deletes nothing, auth is injected server-side, calls are throttled under LearnWorlds' 30-per-10s cap, and retried on 429/5xx. It also details error statuses (401, 403, 404, 422) and how non-2xx responses surface. This is rich behavioral context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the read-only indicator and endpoint. Almost every section earns its place, though the first two sentences are mildly redundant: 'Get seat offerings that a user is member of' and 'Returns a list of all seat offerings that the specified user is a member of' restate the same idea.

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-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it safely and interpret results: endpoint, return format, error semantics, rate limiting, retry behavior, and explicit use guidance. Nothing important 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?

The schema already covers the only parameter fully: 'User Id or email (encoded string)' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond referring to 'the specified user,' so the 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 and resource: 'Get seat offerings that a user is member of' and clarifies the result is a list of all seat offerings for the specified user. This clearly differentiates it from seat-offering siblings like get_seat_offerings or get_users_seat_offering.

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 'Use when: safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting' and 'Not for changing anything — use the matching write tool.' It also lists related Users tools, giving an agent concrete guidance on when this lookup is appropriate versus mutation tools.

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