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

Annotations already mark it read-only and open-world, and the description is consistent with that (조회/lookup). It adds value by listing the returned data (representative, address, employee count, establishment date, industry, etc.) and noting the 50-point cost per call, which is useful because there is no output schema.

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 reasonably compact and front-loads the purpose and input constraint before listing return fields and cost. The bilingual repetition is somewhat redundant, but the field list and point cost justify each section.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke correctly: input format, scope, and expected result fields. It lacks explicit routing guidance among siblings, but that affects selection more than invocation.

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?

The single parameter biz_no is already fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage: string, 10 digits, no hyphen, example. The description adds only the Korean-business scope and repeats '10-digit business registration number,' so it does not materially exceed schema coverage.

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: look up general status information of a Korean business using its 10-digit business registration number, and enumerates the fields returned. It is clear and distinct in function, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling venture_biz_info, so it misses the top score.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as venture_biz_info or other business/ID lookup tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The qualifier 'general status information' hints at scope but does not tell an agent when not to use it.

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