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

Annotations already signal read-only and open-world behavior; the description adds non-schema info about cost (2 credits/call, 1 on cache hit) and lists the returned fields. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not detail response structure or not-found behavior beyond what the open-world hint implies.

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, front-loaded with cost and purpose, no filler; the fallback instruction earns its place.

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?

Low-complexity tool with a single fully documented parameter; the description lists all return fields, mitigating the absent output schema and referencing the relevant sibling for the lookup flow.

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 covers the sole parameter 100%, including pattern and meaning. The description reiterates corp_code and adds the conditional 'if unknown, search first,' a small usage boost, but does not add format or value semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('조회합니다') with a clear resource ('기업개황') and enumerates the exact fields returned, so the agent knows precisely what this tool does. It contrasts with search_corporation by requiring corp_code, which differentiates it from the sibling.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition: corp_code is required. Instructs the agent to call search_corporation first if corp_code is unknown, which is an explicit alternative routing.

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