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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing: no external calls ('외부 호출 없음'), order-sensitivity of results ('순서를 바꾸면 결과가 바뀐다'), and the minimum-input behavior ('하나만 넣으면 전이가 없어 얻을 것이 없다'). These are non-obvious operational traits that materially change how the agent should invoke the tool.

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 follows a clear arc — definition, use-case examples, alternative mapping, parameter guidance, safety note — with scannable markers (→, ★) that aid parsing. It is slightly long and the closing '읽기 전용' partially duplicates readOnlyHint, but no sentence is wasted and the disambiguation section earns its length given 11 siblings.

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 tool with full annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: what it computes, when to use it, what to use instead, how to order inputs, an edge-case warning (single space), the target's role, and the side-effect profile. Return-format details are already covered by the output schema, so their absence is not a gap.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), the description adds real semantic value: spaces must be the 'actual movement order' with array order being the route itself, a de facto minimum of two entries with the reasoning (a single space produces no transition), and target is explained as checking coherence/discrepancy against the goal — something the schema only hints at with an example. This transforms the parameters from data shapes into behavioral instructions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement — 'reads atmosphere transitions when passing through spaces in order' — and grounds it with concrete examples ('진입에서 거실까지 감정 흐름', '압축에서 해방'). It closes with an explicit scope boundary ('이 도구는 체험 순서만 다룬다') and names what it is not (answer_why, review_plan, scenario), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening their schemas.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition (movement order + experience goal) and names three alternatives with their trigger conditions: reasons/judgment → answer_why, legal-plan review → review_plan, process order → scenario. The only gap is that spatially or sequentially adjacent siblings such as traverse and path_between are not addressed, even though the tool's spatial/sequential theme makes confusion with them plausible.

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