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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds value by disclosing the return payload (cat info, stable image URL) and the exclusion of private records and comments, which is behavioral context beyond 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?

Two tight sentences: the lookup action and its payload lead, and the scope limitation follows. No filler; every clause carries meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (post, cat info, stable image URL). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete for a single-parameter read tool, missing only guidance on discovering the UUID.

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% with a single required postId documented as 게시물 UUID with a UUID pattern. The description echoes this ("게시물 UUID로") but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (조회) and resource (공개 기록) and even enumerates what is returned (고양이 정보, 안정적인 이미지 URL). This clearly distinguishes it from get_cat_profile and show_cat_photos, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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?

Implies usage by post UUID lookup and draws a boundary by stating private posts and comments are excluded. However, it never names the alternative (e.g., search_public_content) or explains when to prefer it, so an agent must infer the workflow.

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