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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's contribution is enumerating exactly what data comes back (places, gift steps, notices, FAQ), which is valuable context given there is no output schema. It stops short of stating any freshness, caching, or error behavior.

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?

One compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and the returned fields enumerated inline. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical field list is dense and slightly hard to scan.

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 read-only, single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well by naming the payload sections. Missing only usage framing and any note on what happens if the id is invalid or the tour has no places.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in-schema as coming from search_tours results. The description adds no further semantics about the id (type, format, provenance) beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 (돌려준다/returns) applied to a single tour (한 곳) and enumerates the payload it delivers – place list with name/coords/course, gift steps, notices, FAQ. '한 곳' implicitly separates it from search_tours and find_nearby_tours, though the contrast with siblings is not made explicit.

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 contains no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The only routing signal ('search_tours 결과의 id') lives in the schema, not the description, so an agent gets no usage framing from the text itself.

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