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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: it states the link is a search link (not a specific room/booking page), that availability is not checked, and that the query differs per platform (naver/google use name+address, tour uses name only, risking same-name collisions).

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key caveats. Every sentence earns its place; only a minor stylistic quibble keeps it from a 5.

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 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, return format need not be described. The description covers scope, non-booking semantics, and platform-query behavior, leaving nothing critical for correct invocation, though it could note anything about why stay_id must come from stay_search.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the platform choice actually does to the generated query (name+address vs name-only) and why tour results may be ambiguous.

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 names a specific verb and resource — it builds a link to the original platform's (Naver/Google/Tour) search results — and explicitly negates what it is not (a booking page). This lets an agent distinguish it from stay_search/stay_detail, though it does not name those siblings directly.

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?

It clearly frames the context: the server does not process bookings and sends the user to the original platform, which implies use when the user wants to proceed toward booking. There is no explicit statement of when-not to use it or which sibling to prefer instead, so it falls short of a 5.

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