library_hours

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one meaningful constraint (seat status is out of scope because it requires login). However, it says nothing about whether hours are static or term/holiday-dependent, nor about staleness of the data — relevant behavioral context for a schedule tool.

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, resource identity front-loaded, with the scope limitation placed immediately after. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

A simple read-only, zero-parameter lookup with an output schema that carries the return shape. The description covers what it returns and one exclusion, which is nearly complete; only freshness/term-dependence context is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies for a no-arg tool.

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: the central library's 자료실 (collection room) and 열람실 (reading room) operating hours. An agent can distinguish it from library_search (searching materials) and campus_building without ambiguity, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 resource itself (call it to get library hours), and the parenthetical adds a useful scope exclusion — seat availability is not available here due to login requirements. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to an alternative tool for seat data.

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