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

The description discloses a genuinely non-obvious behavior: '재고를 확인하지 못한 숙소를 결과에서 지우지 않는다' (does not remove unconfirmed-inventory results), then defines the semantic of availability=unknown and instructs the agent to communicate it to the user. This adds substantial value beyond the annotations (readOnly/openWorld/idempotent) and is fully consistent with them — 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 sentences with zero waste: a one-line purpose statement followed by a bolded critical caveat. The most important behavioral warning is front-loaded and visually emphasized, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the one behavioral caveat an agent must know to handle results correctly, while the schema carries all parameter semantics and the annotations cover the safety profile — so nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool. The only gap is explicit routing guidance among the four stay-related sibling tools.

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. The description itself mentions no parameters; all parameter meaning (region matching rules, romanization limits, checkin date behavior, category enum) lives in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with '조건에 맞는 국내 숙소를 찾는다' — a specific verb (찾는다/finds), resource (국내 숙소/domestic accommodations), and scope (조건에 맞는/matching conditions). This clearly separates it from report_issue and stay_booking_link, though it does not explicitly name stay_detail or draw a boundary against it.

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 bolded directive — keep unknown-inventory results and tell the user 'unknown ≠ fully booked' — implies when and how to use the tool's results. However, the description never states when to choose stay_search over stay_detail or stay_booking_link, and offers no exclusions or alternative routing.

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