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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the composite data sources (NTS, DART, 12-month KONEPS, OFAC/EU/UK screening), the shape of the result (riskLevel, riskFlags, per-section status), the scope limit that sanctions screening runs on the English name only, and the pricing/payment rail (x402, USDC on Base or Solana). It omits failure behavior, e.g., what happens when no company matches or when multiple candidates match the supplied name.

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?

Front-loaded with the 'Use when' trigger, then Input, Output, caveat, example and price, each sentence carrying distinct information. The example (?stock_code=005930) and price line are compact and actionable rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the necessary work: it enumerates the returned sections and the risk summary, states the screening scope, and gives cost. Remaining gaps are edge behavior such as ambiguous or unmatched company names and any rate limits, which matter for an agent deciding whether to retry.

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 per-field meanings are already documented. The description nonetheless adds cross-parameter semantics the schema lacks: it states that exactly one of business_number, dart_corp_code, stock_code or q should be supplied, which is not encoded anywhere in the schema (no oneOf, required is empty). The note that q is an exact name match is echoed from the schema rather than added.

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 names a specific verb ('vet') and a specific resource ('South Korean supplier or counterparty') and clarifies it bundles NTS status, DART profile, procurement awards and sanctions in one call, which separates it from single-purpose siblings like kr_business_status or sanctions_screen. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named sibling kyb_check, leaving an ambiguity an agent must resolve by guessing.

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?

'Use when an agent must vet a South Korean supplier or counterparty before paying, contracting or onboarding it' gives a clear triggering context, and 'Not a legal determination' sets a usage boundary. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., use kr_company_profile when only a profile is needed, or sanctions_screen for address-level screening).

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