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

Annotations cover only safety/idempotency hints, but the description adds substantial non-annotation behavior: billing of 126P on first result, free re-inquiry within the validity window, PARTIAL_SUCCESS still incurring the unit price, and RESULT_EXPIRED semantics. It also explains why readOnlyHint=false despite being a lookup (the charge), so no contradiction arises.

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 purpose, then status handling, then billing, then result structure — a sensible order with no filler. Minor redundancy: the first-result charge and free re-inquiry are stated twice (mid-text and again in the bracketed pricing line).

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: resultAvailable, status, errorCode, and the per-certificate result.businessRegistrationCert/vatTaxBaseCert/financialStatementCert fields, plus terminal statuses. An agent has everything needed to interpret and poll 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% and the single transactionId parameter already documents its source, format, and 32-char hex pattern. The description restates the source but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (조회) and resource (승인 상태와 사업자 증빙서류 통합발급 결과), and explicitly ties itself to the upstream sibling req_business_cert_bundle as the source of the transactionId. An agent can distinguish this polling/result tool from the request tool without opening either schema.

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 conditional routing: AUTH_WAITING means wait for phone approval, COLLECTING means re-poll with the same ID shortly, and RESULT_EXPIRED after resultExpiresAt means a new authentication submission is required. This is a complete when/when-not protocol, not implied usage.

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