get_users_seat_offering

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavior: 'read-only lookup against the live school; creates, changes and deletes nothing,' server-side auth injection, throttling under the 30-per-10s cap, retry on 429/5xx, and explicit error-surface behavior. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses short labeled sections for behavior, parameters, returns, and usage. Every sentence adds operational value—response format, error handling, auth, throttling, and when to use—without fluff or 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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains the response envelope: 'HTTP <status> followed by the LearnWorlds JSON response body' and the behavior of non-2xx replies. It also covers pagination defaults, sorting, authentication, rate limits, and retry behavior, making the tool fully usable by an agent without external documentation.

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% for the two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics: pagination via `page`, default limit of 20 users per page, and sorting with newest users first. It does not repeat schema details and enriches the agent's understanding of how to use the parameters.

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: 'Get all users of seat offering' and 'Retrieves all the users who are members of the seat offering specified by the provided seat offering id.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_specific_seat_offering and get_seat_offerings_that_user_is_member by stating it lists the members of one 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?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use when: safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting. Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool.' It also names related seat-offering tools, giving the agent clear routing information versus alternatives.

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