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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds concrete behavioral detail by stating '한 번만 센다' (counts only once) and '자기 글은 안 되고' (self-like prohibited). It also surfaces the key requirement, which annotations do not cover. No contradiction with 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 a compact two-part phrase with an English translation, front-loading the key requirement and core restrictions. Every element earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter action with no output schema, the description adequately covers the key requirement, target resource, and behavioral constraints. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple like operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It never explicitly says post_id is the target post, though '글에 공감한다' and the tool name make that inference natural. It does add the behavioral constraint that the post cannot be the caller's own, but parameter format and exact meaning are left to 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?

The description names a specific verb ('공감한다' / 'Like') and resource ('글' / 'a post'), with an English gloss that removes ambiguity. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_comment and create_thread because the action is uniquely a like, not a comment or creation.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite ('[키 필요]' / key required) and two restrictions: cannot like one's own post and it counts only once. It does not name alternative tools, but there is no close sibling for liking, so the usage guidance is sufficiently clear.

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