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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description explains why — each call consumes one token, creates an XBOSS task, and persists the processing result, so it is explicitly not a pure read operation even though the underlying institutional query is. It also flags that the request_idempotency_key is unavailable to anonymous calls and must not be confused with a provider-specific idempotency_key.

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?

Prerequisites and purpose are front-loaded, but the middle section is repetitive ('Without it, calling again remains a new request' restates the preceding sentence) and the trailing Korean boilerplate about XBOSS task creation partially duplicates the English intent. Mixed-language duplication costs clarity without adding 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?

Prerequisites, cost, and idempotency are covered thoroughly for a 3-parameter tool, but there is no output schema and the description never indicates what the 'status' result looks like (e.g., valid/closed/suspended fields), so an agent must call it blind. Naming the sibling distinction would also round it out.

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 baseline is 3; the description nonetheless adds real semantics for request_idempotency_key (generate before the first request, reuse only to recover a lost response, new key for new execution, omitting it makes retries new requests). It adds nothing beyond the schema for txpr_dscm_no or account_link_id, which are already well documented.

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 business registration status by business registration number (사업자등록번호). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling hometax__tax__business_registration__search_info or from opendata__nts__status/validate, leaving an agent to infer which lookup is appropriate.

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 (prior hometax__session__login with the same account_link_id) and precise rules for when to reuse vs. regenerate the idempotency key, which is genuine when-to guidance. It never says when not to use this tool or which sibling to prefer, so it falls short of a 5.

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