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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the APQA source, daily sync freshness, and the sort order. It stops short of describing result volume or pagination behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence with a parenthetical for provenance; scope, freshness, ordering and language all front-loaded with no filler. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema and only 50% parameter coverage, the description does well on source, freshness, sort order and locale, but never sketches what a record contains (breed, notice dates, shelter contact) or how many results come back. That is a minor but real gap for a discovery tool.

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% – sido and sigungu are documented with examples, and kind is an enum, so structured data does much of the work. The description only implicitly maps 'dogs, cats and other' to the kind enum and 'Korea only' to the geographic filters; it says nothing about limit or its default/max of 20/50.

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 resource (dogs, cats and other animals in public notice at South Korean shelters), the data source, and the ordering (soonest notice end first). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools (find_vets, find_pet_travel, get_breed, check_toxic_food) without opening any 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?

'Korea only; data in Korean' gives useful scoping constraints, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no sibling is named as an alternative (e.g., get_breed for breed details, find_vets for care). Usage is implied by the domain rather than stated.

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