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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful edge-case caveat — breed pages may have no public records — which the annotations cannot express. It stops short of richer behavioral detail (e.g., ordering, pagination) but is well beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage routing, then the caveat — a sensible order. The bilingual phrasing is somewhat repetitive (the Korean and English sentences partly restate each other), but every sentence still 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out in prose; the description instead supplies the integration guidance and the empty-page caveat an agent needs. For a simple read-only list with full schema coverage it is complete, with only minor room to note ordering or result size.

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 100% and both parameters carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the category options (단모종/장모종/대형묘/희귀묘/코숏·믹스) already present in the enum description, and says nothing about the 'fields' parameter, so it adds little 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns the cat breed id, name, category and per-breed page URL used on the site. An agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like get_cat_profile or search_public_content.

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 explicitly routes the agent: 'use the id or label as the breed facet in search_public_content and show_cat_photos', naming the alternatives and the condition that selects them. It also notes the category narrowing options, so both when-to-use and how-to-chain are covered.

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