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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is free. The description earns credit by disclosing the cost model ('[호출당 50포인트]') and by enumerating the derived metrics returned, which annotations do not cover. It stops short of stating data freshness, failure behavior, or return shape, so 4 rather than 5.

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 sentences: the first front-loads the verb, resource and identifying inputs; the second enumerates output content and cost. Nothing is padded, though the bilingual duplication (English action line + Korean detail line) costs a little compactness. The cost tag is well placed at the end.

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 read-only 4-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers inputs, returned statement set, derived ratios and per-call cost — enough to call it correctly. Gaps are minor: no guidance on missing-data behavior or on what 'all' produces versus a single statement section.

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 crno format, the type/scope enums and the bizYear default are all documented in the schema. The description only restates the crno+year pairing at a high level and adds no format, edge-case, or defaulting information beyond it. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get a company financial package') and enumerates exactly what is included: 요약재무제표, 재무상태표, 손익계산서, plus computed 부채비율·영업이익률·ROA·ROE and growth rates. This clearly separates it from generic business-lookup siblings, though it never names a sibling it should not be used in place of.

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?

Usage is implied: call it with a 법인등록번호 and optional year to obtain statements and ratios. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of alternatives such as biz_detail or venture_biz_info, and no prerequisite guidance, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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