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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world job creation, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: an up-to-180-second execution window, exact point costs, a no-charge-on-pre-payment-failure policy, and a documented re-download path via the X-Apick-Job-Id header. The only weakness is the trailing '[호출당 850포인트]' tag, which is inconsistent with the stated 1250P issue price.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, and each following sentence carries distinct information (latency, price, refund rule, redownload endpoint). It is somewhat dense with mixed Korean/English and the closing point-cost tag is redundant with earlier pricing, but there is little pure 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return is a PDF and explains how to retrieve it later using the response header, plus timeout and billing behavior. What is missing is the workflow prerequisite implied by the 'index' parameter, and the pricing tag conflicts slightly with the per-usage pricing table.

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 every parameter including the usage enum and idempotency_key is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion that identification is by corporate registration number and that the returned header carries job_id for redownload; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'View and issue a corporate registry certificate in one call', and repeats the corporate registration number as the key input. It is clearly a job-creation/PDF-issuance tool, distinct from registry_corporate_search, but it never names the sibling search tool that supplies the 'index' row number, so the relationship is only inferable from the 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?

It explains the view vs issue choice through pricing (850P vs 1250P) and notes that failures before payment are not charged, which implicitly guides selection. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement that a prior search is needed to obtain 'index', and no routing toward or away from registry_corporate_search or registry_doc_verify.

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