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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds concrete details: cost per call, cache pricing, and that listed companies return stock_code. However, it omits behavior like result limiting (via limit parameter) or pagination, which are not covered by annotations.

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 description is a single, compact sentence (plus a cost line) that front-loads key constraints and the primary use case. No filler or repetition; every element 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?

Given the annotations cover read-only and open-world aspects, the description covers the core functionality, output highlights (corp_code and stock_code), cost, and the downstream tool. It does not mention result limits or the exact return format, but these are minor given the schema and the clear linkage to lookup_corporation.

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 coverage is 50% (name has a description, limit does not). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides; it mentions neither the meaning of a partial name nor the function of the limit field. For the name parameter, the schema description is adequate; for limit, the schema's range and default offer some clarity, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 explicitly states the verb (search), resource (법인 registered with DART), and outcome (find corp_code). It also distinguishes from lookup_corporation by noting the returned corp_code feeds that tool, making its unique role clear among siblings.

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 clearly states the primary use case (searching for a corporation by name to get corp_code for lookup_corporation) and mentions cost. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the linkage to lookup_corporation and the distinct domains of siblings provide adequate guidance.

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