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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: output is a JPEG, word sizes reflect frequency/importance, and each call costs 10 points. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded with the key English statement, and the cost note is a concise addition. The Korean sentence largely restates the English content, creating minor redundancy, but it is not bloated and remains easy to parse.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description supplies the essential purpose, output format, and pricing. It does not specify how the JPEG is returned (URL vs. binary), but no output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that an agent can still 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?

The only parameter, 'text', is fully described in the input schema ('워드클라우드를 생성할 텍스트'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail such as length limits or language constraints, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Generate a word cloud image (JPEG)') and the method ('sizing each word by frequency'). It is unambiguous about the resource and distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which advertise word-cloud generation.

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 intended use is implied: call this when the user needs a word cloud from input text. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. The cost note is useful but does not provide selection guidance.

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