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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds material behavior the annotations do not: a hard 100-item batch cap and, importantly, the paid model ($0.01 USDC per call, x402 on Base), which an agent must know before invoking. It does not mention rate limits or what a failed/low-confidence match returns.

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 core purpose, then inputs, then price. Two sentences with no filler. Slightly dense in the enumeration but every clause conveys usable information.

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 correctly specifies the return shape (one canonical entity, all associated IDs, a confidence score). The main gap is the undocumented `limit_candidates` parameter; otherwise it is complete enough to call correctly.

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 0% (2 params), so the description must carry the parameter burden. It adequately explains `items` (quantity, accepted name/ID forms) but says nothing about `limit_candidates`, leaving the second parameter undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 and resource: 'match up to 100 company names ... or IDs ... to one canonical entity with all IDs and a confidence score.' It enumerates the accepted name forms (Korean/English, (주), Co., Ltd., typos, former names) and the ID schemes (BRN, corporate reg no., DART corp_code, stock code, LEI), which is unusually informative. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling kr_company_resolve, which sounds highly overlapping.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no explicit alternative named. Given a near-identical sibling (kr_company_resolve), the description should say when to pick this crosswalk/batch resolver versus that one, but it leaves the relationship entirely to inference.

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