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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds complementary context: default behavior (most recent intent), the possibility of concurrent intents from confirm_action, and the authentication requirement (LIBRARY login). The 'mcp_session_id 필요' phrasing is slightly ambiguous against the schema's optional marking, but in context it reads as 'a session with LIBRARY login is required' rather than 'this parameter is mandatory.'

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?

Three sentences with zero redundancy: purpose first, then the default behavior, then the exception case and auth note. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information (when to omit vs. specify intent_id) is front-loaded.

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?

Invocation semantics are fully covered: default behavior, the multi-intent exception, and the authentication requirement. With no output schema, the description does not describe the response shape or possible status values, which is a minor gap for an agent deciding next steps in the wait flow, but the calling logic itself is complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their defaults, placing this at baseline 3. The description adds scenario context for intent_id (the confirm_action multi-intent case) beyond the schema's explanation, plus the LIBRARY login requirement for the session. These additions are useful but marginal rather than compensating for any schema gap.

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: '도서관 좌석 대기/예약 intent 상태를 조회합니다' (queries library seat waiting/reservation intent status). The resource is precise — the intent state, not the seat itself — which implicitly separates it from siblings like get_library_seat_status and get_my_library_seat. However, it never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 explicit parameter-selection guidance: omit intent_id when only one wait intent exists (the common case), and pass the intentId from a confirm_action response when multiple intents may be in flight. It clearly marks the multi-intent case as the exception that requires the explicit ID. It does not, however, address tool-level alternatives or conditions for not using this tool at all.

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