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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the data source is the Korea Tourism Organization, results are Korea-only, data is in Korean, and listings include pet rules. It still does not cover pagination or return-shape behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence followed by two short constraints. Every clause adds useful scoping information with no repetition or waste.

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 search tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope, source, language, and content type. It could say more about pagination or result fields, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 50%, with sido and sigungu documented but type and limit left undocumented in the schema. The description maps the type categories to human-readable concepts, but it does not explain limit or the sido/sigungu relationship, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 resource set—pet-friendly stays, restaurants/cafes, attractions, leisure and culture spots—within a South Korean province, and adds source and language constraints. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_vets or find_rescue_animals without needing their schemas.

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 gives a clear usage boundary: Korea only, with data in Korean. That tells the agent when the tool is applicable versus not, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when to prefer another sibling tool.

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