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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds behavioral context about the deposit-to-CONFIRMED status transition, which is not in annotations. This helps the agent understand the expected flow and what the tool is designed for.

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 single, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and then provides the use case. No wasted words; every part 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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and usage scenario. The annotations cover safety, and the description's mention of CONFIRMED status implies the response includes status. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single parameter (chargeRequestId) with a description '충전 신청 ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any extra information about the parameter beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks the status of a single charge request (충전 신청 1건의 상태를 확인합니다) and explicitly mentions the purpose of verifying whether status becomes CONFIRMED after deposit. This distinguishes it from list_charge_requests (listing multiple) and cancel_charge_request (cancelling). The verb '확인' and resource '충전 신청' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear context: it is used after a deposit to check if status changed to CONFIRMED. This implies when to use it (post-deposit verification). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient to differentiate from sibling tools like list_charge_requests.

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