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

The description discloses that the action is IRREVERSIBLE, files an application with the NTS, creates a receipt record (cvaId + rcatNo), and has no cancel action. This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) by explaining the exact consequence and the absence of undo. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the most critical information (prerequisite, irreversibility, two-step confirm flow). Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a destructive, irreversible action with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the workflow, the irreversibility, and the confirm safety rule. The only minor gap is not describing the preview/response format, but the two-step flow is fully specified and the schema covers parameters. This is complete for safe invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's two-phase semantics and the account_link_id auto-resolution behavior, but most parameter meaning is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Apply for Business Registration Reissuance') and resource, and the title confirms the Korean equivalent. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like hometax__certificate__apply__business_registration (initial application) and hometax__certificate__apply_auto, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly states the prerequisite (prior hometax__session__login with same account_link_id), the required two-step flow (call without confirm to preview, show to user, retry with confirm=true), and a hard rule ('Never set confirm=true on your own'). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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