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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and mutability. The description adds valuable behavioral context: cost per call (2 credits, 1 on cache hit), max 100 items per request, and the result status enum. These go beyond what annotations provide, though it omits details like rate limits or error handling.

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 compact and front-loaded with the cost, then the primary function, verification condition, batch limit, and result statuses. Each sentence adds new information with no redundancy or filler, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects for calling the tool: cost, purpose, verification trigger, batch size, and result interpretation. Since there is no output schema, providing the status enum is helpful. Minor omissions like error conditions or behavior when verification fields are partially provided are not critical for a read-only API with clear annotations.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by stating that providing representative_name and opened_date together enables verification, and that business_numbers accepts up to 100 items. It also clarifies the output status values, which helps the agent understand the parameter relationships and expected result format.

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 clearly states the tool queries business registration status (active/suspended/closed/not_registered) and tax type from the National Tax Service, with optional verification when name and opened date are provided. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lookup_corporation or search_corporation by focusing on the registration number status rather than general corporate info.

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?

The description gives clear context on when to use the tool (for registration status/verification) and how to trigger verification by providing representative_name and opened_date together. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but sibling tools operate in different domains (address, law, pricing, balance), so the intended use is evident.

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