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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them by explicitly noting the call is "순수 읽기 전용이 아닙니다" because it creates an XBOSS job and stores results. It adds concrete operational facts the annotations cannot carry: 1 token consumed per call, 15-minute download_url lifetime, 7-day file retention, and the anonymous recovery_receipt contract.

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 text is a dense wall of run-on sentences mixing prerequisite, purpose, artifact retention, receipt recovery, and idempotency, with a Korean paragraph appended. The actual purpose ("Search detailed business registration information") is buried as the second sentence behind a prerequisite, and the anonymous-receipt discussion spans four sentences of largely generic boilerplate.

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 should indicate what the lookup returns, but it only mentions artifacts[] and job_id, never the business-registration fields an agent would get back. Prerequisites, token cost, file lifecycle, and idempotency are covered thoroughly, but the return-value gap and the absence of sibling differentiation leave it only partially complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, which sets the baseline at 3. The description does add meaning for request_idempotency_key (generate before the first request, reuse only to recover a lost response, new key per new execution) that the schema merely defers to, but it contributes nothing extra for output_formats or account_link_id beyond what the schema states.

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"), which is clearly a read of registration detail. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as hometax__tax__business_registration__search_status or hometax__etax__business_info__get, so an agent cannot tell which to pick from the text alone.

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?

It gives a hard prerequisite ("REQUIRES prior hometax__session__login call with same account_link_id") and routing for expired download links ("call xdata__job__result with the job_id"), which is real when-to-use guidance. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over the sibling status-lookup or the etax business_info tool, and the exclusions are limited to file-retrieval scenarios.

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