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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: the data is live and the call is metered at '10 free calls/day'. However it says nothing about what happens when the quota is exhausted, whether responses are cached, or the refresh cadence of the 'live' figures.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the quota constraint placed last. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does (waiting minutes and queue per hall, plus the shortest hall). The main remaining gap is update frequency/coverage of the 'live' data, which an agent might need to judge staleness.

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?

There is one optional parameter (lang) with 100% schema description coverage and an enum, so the schema already documents it fully; the description adds nothing about language handling. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (Incheon Airport departure-hall wait times and queues) with explicit scope (per hall T1/T2, plus the shortest hall) and a data-freshness qualifier ('Live'). No sibling tool covers airport queues, so an agent can tell it apart from seoul_subway_now or seoul_now without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the description ('departure-hall waiting minutes') but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no guidance on alternatives or when this is the wrong tool. Adequate but leaves routing entirely to inference.

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