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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: it does not begin verification, preparation, submission, or extension, and it returns the current stage plus the recommended next action. It stops short of describing pagination or the exact response fields.

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 English sentence is well front-loaded as a summary, but the Korean block both repeats it and carries additional, non-duplicated rules, so the reader must parse both languages to get the full contract. The content is not padded, yet the bilingual mirroring costs efficiency without adding structure.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, exclusions, the alternative tool, and what is returned. The only real gap is the shape of the returned stage/next-action data, which an agent must discover at call time.

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 0% for the single optional journey_id, whose schema carries only a hex pattern. The description does supply the key semantic distinction — omitting journey_id yields a connection-level read, not a per-request submission check — but it never explains what a journey_id identifies or how to obtain one.

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 English opener gives a specific verb and resource ('Read the current connection or specified journey'), and the Korean line adds the return payload ('current stage and next action'). It explicitly separates itself from get_consultation_status for submission state, though the bilingual restatement dilutes the single crisp claim a 5 would need.

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 states a clear negative rule ('do not judge submission from a journey_id-less connection lookup') and routes to the correct sibling with the exact precondition ('with a known exact request_id, use get_consultation_status'). The positive trigger — checking current stage before deciding the next action — is implied rather than spelled out.

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