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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the session-login dependency with the same account_link_id, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not cover output shape or scope, but for a simple read tool with annotations present this is acceptable.

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 with no filler; the critical precondition is front-loaded before the purpose statement. Slightly more could be added (e.g., sibling differentiation), but the structure is efficient and the most important operational fact leads.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only tool with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the key prerequisite. The main gaps are the lack of differentiation from the close sibling search_status and no hint about what 'detailed' information is returned, leaving an agent to guess which variant to choose.

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%; the schema fully documents account_link_id as an optional UUID v4 with auto-resolution behavior. The description adds only the 'same account_link_id' linkage to the login call, a minor semantic tie-in. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource — 'Search detailed business registration information' — matching the tool name and Korean title (사업자등록 정보 조회). It is clear about the domain, but it does not distinguish itself from the near-sibling hometax__tax__business_registration__search_status; 'detailed' is only an implicit differentiator.

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 gives a clear precondition: 'REQUIRES prior hometax__session__login call with same account_link_id,' which is useful operational guidance. However, it provides no when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions — notably nothing clarifying when to pick this over search_status or the public opendata__nts__status lookups.

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