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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-structured context: cost ($0.25 USDC per call), the x402/Base payment mechanism, and the 'facts only, not a rating' framing plus source-and-date provenance. It stops short of describing latency, failure modes, or what happens when an identifier matches multiple companies.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its output contents, then the provenance, scope disclaimer and price. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the returned sections and noting that each fact carries an official source and date, which is exactly what is needed. The remaining gap is the input side: five undocumented, non-required parameters leave the agent unsure which identifier to supply.

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?

Five parameters at 0% schema description coverage with no required fields, and the description explains none of them. It hints at lang via 'in English' but never maps b_no, query, corp_code or stock_code to their meanings, nor does it indicate whether any single identifier suffices or which takes precedence.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource (Korea company due diligence / KYB report) and enumerates exactly what it returns: identity and IDs, NTS status, address, 3 years of financials, DART filings/corrections, auditor opinion, risk flags. This cleanly separates it from siblings like kr_company_resolve (identity lookup only), kr_business_status (status only) and dart_changes (filings only).

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?

Usage is implied by the composite nature of the report, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention that it is the aggregate alternative to the narrower sibling tools, and no note that an agent may need kr_company_resolve first to obtain the identifiers it accepts. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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