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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail: no query returns popular photos, a query narrows by breed, cat name, or tag. It omits result shape and pagination, but for a read-only browse tool this is solid added context.

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-loads what the tool returns and the invocation triggers before covering parameter behavior. It is somewhat long and duplicates itself by restating the Korean explanation in English, but no sentence is wasted on filler.

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, yet the description makes clear these are real user-submitted cat photos from a specific Korean site, which is enough to set expectations. Between the description and the rich annotations, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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%, so the enum values, limit bounds, and query semantics are already documented in the schema. The description's query examples (코리안 숏헤어, 러시안 블루, 치즈냥이) largely restate the schema's own examples, adding little beyond it.

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 concrete verb+resource ('show real cat photos shared on 오늘냥이') and identifies the source site and content type, which separates it from get_cat_profile and search_public_content. An agent can tell it is a curated photo-browsing tool rather than a search or profile lookup.

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrases ('고양이 사진 보고 싶어', 'show me cat photos') and instructs the agent not to ask which site, which is unusually actionable routing guidance. It also explains the no-query vs query behavior. It does not name when to prefer a sibling tool instead, so it stops short of a full 5.

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