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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: matching works across Korean names, English names and slugs, output language is selectable, and the returned profile includes a suitability guide — details not derivable from annotations. It omits not-found or ambiguity behavior (e.g., does 'maltese' resolve to cat or dog without species?), which keeps it below a 5.

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 pair with the resource front-loaded and examples at the end. The long enumeration of profile fields is justified because there is no output schema, though it reads as a run-on list rather than a structured one.

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, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by listing the profile fields and the language behavior. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'species' parameter and no guidance on name ambiguity or unknown breeds, which matters for a lookup tool with three parameters.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'breed' (Korean/English name or slug) and 'lang'. The description reinforces and illustrates the breed matching with concrete examples ('maltese', '말티즈', 'golden retriever'), which is meaning beyond the schema. However, the 'species' parameter is neither described in the schema nor mentioned in the description, leaving the agent to guess whether it disambiguates overlapping dog/cat breed names.

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-object-resource combination up front: returns a profile of a dog or cat breed. The description enumerates exactly what the profile contains (size, weight, lifespan, temperament, health issues, feeding note, suitability guide), so an agent knows this is not a search or a list tool like the sibling tools find_vets or find_rescue_animals.

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 usage context is implied: this tool looks up breed facts by name, which none of the siblings do (toxic food, travel, rescue, vets). There is no explicit "use this when…" statement, no exclusion, and no mention of what happens when the breed is unknown or ambiguous, so the agent must infer the boundaries.

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