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

Annotations only declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world; the description adds the real behavioral detail: a ~25s per-call wait, a 5-minute total polling budget, the settled flag's meaning, and the no_response handling rule ('say so; never guess'). It also prescribes how to relay results to the end user, which no annotation covers.

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?

Front-loads the action and the retry rule in the first clause before the status legend. The status glossary, including Korean terms, is dense but every entry earns its place; the single run-on sentence is heavy but not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description effectively supplies one: it enumerates every status value, defines settled-driven retry, and specifies the no_response fallback and reporting obligations. An agent can invoke and interpret this tool correctly from the description alone.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents queryId as coming from request_live_status, so the description adds no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: wait for the owner's answer to a live question, with a bounded ~25s window. The reference to queryId 'returned by request_live_status' implicitly places it after the request step, but it never names the sibling it should not be confused with (get_live_status for a single check).

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?

Gives explicit loop guidance: 'if settled=false, call again (5 minutes in total)', which tells the agent exactly when to repeat and when to stop. It does not state when to prefer get_live_status or search_live_status instead, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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