Add Reservation Watch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'registers a new reservation watch' and does not explain that this creates an ongoing monitor, that it may search Naver, that it can auto-book or ask for approval based on mode, or what side effects occur. The parameter descriptions in the schema cover some details, but the core behavior is undisclosed.

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 one short sentence, which is efficient but under-specified for a tool with 10 parameters and 5 required fields. It front-loads nothing useful beyond the name itself. The extreme brevity comes at the expense of conveying any operational detail, so it is not appropriate conciseness.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and only a one-line description, the definition is severely incomplete. It fails to explain prerequisites (e.g., Naver login), the lifecycle of a watch, what successful registration returns (even though an output schema exists), and how mode affects behavior. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly from the description alone.

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 tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself richly defines parameters (mode, time_priority, store_url, etc.). Thus the description neither helps nor harms parameter understanding.

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 ('등록합니다' / registers) and resource ('새 예약 감시' / new reservation watch), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like reserve_now or check_availability, but the noun-phrase 'reservation watch' is distinct enough from immediate reservation actions.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this tool is for monitoring future availability, nor does it distinguish itself from reserve_now (immediate booking) or check_availability (one-time check). The schema hints at modes but the description provides no usage context.

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