check_book_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that loan availability is based on '정보나루 전일 기준' (as of the previous day), which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention output format, error behavior, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key caveat about data freshness. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a critical data-freshness caveat. It doesn't explicitly describe the return format, but the tool's simplicity and clear purpose make this a minor gap. Slightly more detail on the response would be ideal, but it's largely complete.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema 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?

The description states a specific verb (조회합니다 - queries) and resource (도서 소장 여부와 대출 가능 여부 - book holding and loan availability for a specific library). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_books and search_libraries by focusing on availability check for a given ISBN and library code.

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 implies usage when you need to check if a book is available at a library, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The schema's libCode description hints at using search_library_codes first, but the main description lacks explicit usage guidance.

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