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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is met for safety, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: enumerated filing_tier outcomes and what each implies, the required follow-up route for audit_only and listed_konex, the anti-retry rule for empty financials on KONEX, and the provisional/no_disclosure_found caveat about never concluding 비외감. This is rare, decision-relevant disclosure.

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?

Content is front-loaded with a one-line summary, then separated into [Purpose], [Usage], [Response], and [Rules] blocks. Despite its length, each block carries distinct decision-relevant information (routing, output shape, caveats) with no filler sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating data_location.filing_tier values, company.corp_cls codes, and acc_mt. Combined with the routing rules and caveats, an agent has everything needed to call this and correctly interpret the result.

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 100% and both parameters (corp accepting 회사명/종목코드/corp_code, year's fiscal-period and provisional semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description's examples reinforce the accepted corp formats but add little meaning not present in the schema text, which is the expected baseline case.

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 opening line names a specific verb (조회) and resources (기업개황: 업종·대표자·결산월·상장구분 plus data_location), and the [Purpose] section explicitly routes agents elsewhere for adjacent needs (감사 → get_audit_profile, name ambiguity → find_corp_code). An agent can distinguish this from every sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Three concrete natural-language usage examples map user phrasings to parameters, and the [Purpose]/[Rules] sections state when this tool is the right first step (basics + routing check before 재무·감사 calls on unfamiliar/비상장 companies) and name the alternatives explicitly. Both inclusions and exclusions are present.

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