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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds real value beyond them: it interprets empty results ('empty upstream rows mean no matching record in this API response — not a certified no-sanction claim') and discloses the auth model (platform key only, no account_link_id). It does not discuss rate limits or result volume, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core verb+resource and then the two highest-value caveats (empty-result semantics, auth). The raw API identifiers are somewhat technical but reasonably earn their place for traceability.

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 does the right thing by explaining the meaning of empty rows and the auth requirement. It still does not indicate what a non-empty record contains (e.g. sanction period, grounds), leaving a small gap for a tool whose return shape is undocumented elsewhere.

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 all five parameters (including bizno format, pagination, and date-range bounds) are already documented in the schema with Korean descriptions. The description only echoes bizno and the fixed inqryDiv, adding no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('G2B 나라장터 unfair-supplier sanction records') and pins the upstream source (data.go.kr 15129466 getUnptRsttCorpInfo02). This clearly separates it from the sibling sanction tools, which target other datasets (env waste sanction, kiscon sanction).

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 supplies useful operating context (inqryDiv=1 is fixed, platform service key only, no account_link_id) but never states when to choose this tool over the closely related opendata__env__waste_sanction or opendata__kiscon__sanction. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than explicitly framed.

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