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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond those: it returns away-status seats, explains compact/truncated/hasMore semantics, notes real-time nature, and clarifies that externalSeatId is consumed by a related reservation tool. No contradictions with annotations.

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 efficient and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then lists return contents, parameter behaviors, metadata flags, the alternative sibling tool, and authentication requirement. Each sentence carries distinct useful information with no filler.

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?

With no output schema present, the description fully compensates by specifying return fields (available count, externalSeatId, seat numbers, away seats, truncated/hasMore), auth requirements, pagination, and how the result connects to reservation workflows. An agent has enough context to call this tool and interpret its response.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description meaningfully extends parameter understanding: it defines limit's maximum as 200, specifies that limit/offset apply per-room arrays, explains that compact=true omits seat ID/number arrays, and describes mcp_session_id fallback behavior. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it querys real-time reservable seats across all 7 library rooms at Soongsil University, returning per-room available counts, externalSeatId lists, and seat numbers. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_room_available_seats by framing this as the whole-library overview tool, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives clear usage context: use this for overall library seat availability, then follow up with get_room_available_seats for detailed views of a specific room. It also mentions that externalSeatId feeds into prepare_reserve_library_seat and that mcp_session_id requires LIBRARY login, giving both workflow and prerequisite guidance.

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