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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that this requires an authenticated SAINT session. It does not disclose return format or edge cases, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose (query graduation status) and includes the key prerequisite (mcp_session_id / SAINT login). There is no wasted text.

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 read-only query with one optional parameter and comprehensive annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool. However, with no output schema, it does not specify the shape of the graduation status result, which is a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents mcp_session_id as optional with a bound-session fallback. The description adds that the session relates to SAINT login but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('조회합니다' / queries) and names a specific resource (graduation eligibility and requirement fulfillment in u-SAINT for authenticated students). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool evaluate_graduation_with_policy.

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 mentions that a session ID is needed and ties it to SAINT login, but it gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like evaluate_graduation_with_policy or check_scholarship_policy. No exclusions or distinguishing usage scenarios are provided.

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