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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a per-call cost of 40 points, and the fact that unregistered/sole-proprietor queries return zero results and still cost 0P. That pricing and empty-result behavior is not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Bilingual purpose statement is front-loaded, followed by the empty-result caveat and the cost tag. Reasonably tight, though mirroring the English sentence in Korean adds redundant length rather than new 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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not describe the shape of results or pagination. It also does not resolve the fact that 0 parameters are required while the workflow clearly needs at least one identifier. Coverage of cost and empty-result behavior is good, but return-side information is missing.

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 schema already documents both parameters and their digit-count patterns. The description restates the identifier formats but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 ('Find') and resource ('corporate registry targets in Korea'), plus the two identifier forms (13-digit corp reg number, 10-digit business number). This distinguishes it from registry_realestate_search, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling registry_corporate_jobs_create flow.

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 a useful precondition ('개인사업자·미등록이면 결과가 없고 0P입니다'), clarifying that sole proprietors/unregistered entities return nothing. However, it never states when to use this direct search versus the batch job-based siblings (registry_corporate_jobs_create, registry_jobs_status), leaving the workflow choice to inference.

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