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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses latency (30–90 seconds), a concrete rate limit (max 3 per hour per caller), the cost model (free, no card), and the fact that the draft is unclaimed until the owner signs in. It also flags what the output will leave unresolved (photos, prices), which sets correct expectations about partial results.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its qualifiers, then latency and rate limit, then the return contract. Nearly every clause carries information an agent needs — cost, timing, throttling, and next-step URLs — with no padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload — and it enumerates previewUrl, claimUrl, pages, and outstanding owner tasks. Combined with the latency and rate-limit disclosures, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and explain the result to a user.

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 each parameter already carries a descriptive string, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the optionality framing ('url and/or a short description') and the return-value names; it adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 and artifact — 'Create a free AI website draft' — with its defining attributes (Korean + English, multi-page, mobile-first) and its input sources (site URL and/or short description). That is clearly distinct from the sibling read-only tools gyeol_read_site and gyeol_pricing, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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 implies the trigger conditions ('from an existing site URL and/or a short description') and gives useful downstream instructions ('open it' for previewUrl, sign in at claimUrl to own the draft). But it never names an alternative or states when NOT to use it versus gyeol_read_site, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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