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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent. The description adds that execution is synchronous, task support is forbidden, and the returned JSON is internal application state for orchestration. It also provides instructions on how to handle the response (not showing raw JSON, suggesting next steps). This adds useful behavioral context beyond 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 a series of short, directive sentences that are easy to parse. It front-loads the purpose and classification, then adds behavior and response guidelines. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes either to purpose or usage instructions.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no required params, output schema present), the description still lacks essential context: it doesn't explain what capabilities are returned, how the parameters affect results, or when this tool should be chosen over sibling tools. The output schema may cover return values, but the description's focus on presentation rules leaves functional gaps.

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 0% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (seatId, seatName, includeHidden). The description provides no meaning or usage hints for the parameters, so it completely fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 starts with 'get capabilities' which clearly identifies the action and resource, but provides no scope or distinction from similar tools like get_permissions or get_current_seat. The rest of the description focuses on output formatting rather than clarifying what capabilities are. This is a clear but under-specified purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description mentions using 'assistantSummary first' when responding to the user, but this is about response strategy, not tool selection. There are no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references.

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