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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description usefully adds two behavioral facts beyond the annotations: results are restricted to tours containing a stamp location, and they are ordered nearest-first. It says nothing about result caps, pagination, or what an empty result means, so it is a moderate rather than rich disclosure.

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?

A single declarative sentence with no filler, and the coordinate-proximity constraint is front-loaded. Every element 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?

For a three-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations handling safety, the definition is just barely sufficient. It omits sibling differentiation and any hint about result size or boundary behavior, which matters given the ambiguity with search_tours.

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 lat, lng, and radius_km (including its default of 20 and max of 100) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, unit, or format information beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('투어를 찾는다' / find tours) plus the scope: tours with stamp locations near given coordinates, sorted by proximity. This is more informative than the title alone, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'search_tours', leaving an agent to infer the boundary between them.

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 no when-to-use guidance and never names or contrasts with the alternatives (search_tours, get_tour, get_app_info). Usage is only implied by the coordinate-based phrasing, so an agent must guess how this differs from a general tour search.

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