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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description goes beyond them by disclosing the paid-call behavior ($0.005 USDC per call via x402 on Base) and the ambiguity-handling behavior of returning candidates, which is genuine behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by output and pricing. Dense but no filler; the only mild waste is the somewhat compressed list of return fields that could be phrased more cleanly.

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 steps in and names the returned identifiers (DART corp_code, Korean/English names, stock code, ambiguity candidates), which is exactly what an agent needs to chain calls. Pricing is also covered; only the sibling-routing guidance is missing for a perfect score.

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 0% and the single parameter 'q' is undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the burden. It does so well by enumerating the accepted input forms: Korean name, English name, or stock code, which fully explains the parameter's expected values.

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 specific verb (resolve/find) and resource (listed Korean company) with the accepted lookup keys. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling kr_entity_resolve or kr_company_due_diligence, leaving the agent to guess at boundaries.

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 only implied: the tool is evidently a first-step resolver whose corp_code feeds downstream DART tools, but the description never says when to choose it over kr_entity_resolve or other resolution siblings, and lists no exclusions or prerequisites.

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