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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses input priority ('first wins'), output structure (JSON with stable companyId, names, flags), data sources (OpenDART, KONEPS), and even pricing via x402. It omits rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only resolver that is relatively minor.

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 front-loaded with purpose, inputs, and outputs, and includes a useful example and pricing. It is efficiently structured but slightly dense; the pricing sentence could be separated, though it doesn't detract significantly.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a complete picture for calling: purpose, supported inputs, output fields, data sources, example, and cost. It lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but these are not critical for a simple resolver.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: it specifies that only one input is used, with a precedence order ('first wins'), and clarifies the exact-match behavior for q (ignoring 주식회사/(주)/spacing). This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 tool's role: identify a South Korean company before looking up its profile or public-procurement record. It names the supported inputs and output, and distinguishes itself from downstream siblings like kr_company_profile and kr_company_procurement.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('Use when an agent must identify a South Korean company before looking up its profile...'), implying it should be called first in a sequence. However, it does not explicitly name when not to use it or list alternative tools for other purposes.

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