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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by naming the Korea National Tax Service as the data source and noting that it is real-time, which signals live external data and possible variability beyond static or cached sources.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: input format, output meaning, and data source. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a simple single-parameter lookup with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the purpose, the exact input format, the returned status categories, and the data source. It lacks only a brief note about how it differs from the sibling batch and verify tools, which is more of an usage-guidance gap than a completeness gap.

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%, with the business_number parameter already documented as a 10-digit Korean registration number with hyphens/spaces allowed. The tool description echoes this format and provides an example, but does not materially add 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 clearly states the tool checks the registration status of a Korean business using a 10-digit business registration number, and specifies the returned information (active/suspended/closed, tax type). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling batch or verify tools, but the single-number input and status-return focus make its purpose identifiable.

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 explains that the tool checks a single Korean business by registration number, but it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over check_korean_business_batch or verify_korean_business. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection hints.

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