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

Goes well beyond the read-only/destructive annotations by disclosing that the server scans a date window and matches post-hoc, that empty matches only mean no hit in this window (not a certified clean claim), and that it uses a platform service key with no account_link_id auth. These are non-obvious behavioral constraints an agent needs.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads purpose and then layers mechanism and caveats; every sentence carries information. It is slightly packed, with several concepts (match logic, empty-result caveat, auth) run together, but there is little waste.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema and 8 documented parameters, the description supplies the matching logic, the empty-result interpretation, and the auth model. It does not describe returned fields (e.g., the ncrMasterNum comparison result), but with a fully-covered schema and safe annotations the coverage is nearly sufficient.

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, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies the bizno/sDate/eDate interaction (window scan then registration-number match) and the conditional role of corp_name as a fallback key. This explains parameter relationships the per-parameter schema strings do not.

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 (KISCON construction-firm disclosure rows), and anchors it to the upstream API (data.go.kr 15061362 ConAdminInfoSvc1/GongsiReg). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling sanction lookups such as opendata__env__waste_sanction and opendata__g2b__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?

Explains the mechanics of use: upstream requires sDate/eDate rather than bizno, the server scans the window and matches the registration number, with a company-name fallback only when the source row lacks a registration number. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool or spell out when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full explicit routing.

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