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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the valuable behavioral detail that it performs real-time inventory re-check, which goes beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction.

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 concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and add the unique real-time check. No wasted words, and the structure is effective.

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?

Given the output schema exists and all parameters are fully described in the schema, the description is complete for an agent to call it correctly. It states what the tool does and highlights the unique real-time check, which is all that is needed.

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 all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so it does not exceed the baseline for high coverage.

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 (조회한다), resource (숙소 하나), and scope (상세 정보와 재고). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like stay_search by focusing on a single stay and explicitly mentions the unique real-time inventory re-check, which sets it 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?

It explicitly states that real-time inventory re-check is only done here, giving a clear condition for when to use this tool. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, though the sibling names (stay_search, stay_booking_link) imply context. This is a clear but not exhaustive usage guideline.

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