search_business_information

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'provides' information (implying read-only) and describes return format, but lacks critical details: authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, data freshness, or whether it performs destructive operations. For a search tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses bullet points for the information_type enum values. While comprehensive, it's appropriately sized for a tool with 4 parameters and detailed options. Every sentence earns its place by adding necessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters with detailed enum options) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description provides good parameter documentation but has significant gaps. It explains what information is returned but not the format (beyond '텍스트'), and lacks behavioral context like error handling or data sources. For a search tool without structured output, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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?

The description adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It provides Korean explanations for all 4 parameters, including detailed enum values for 'information_type' with 7 specific options and their meanings. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and gives clear semantic meaning to each parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '회사의 사업 관련 현황 정보를 제공하는 도구' (provides company business status information). It specifies the resource (company business information) and verb (provides/search), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_detailed_financial_data or search_disclosure.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like search_detailed_financial_data or search_disclosure, nor does it explain what distinguishes business information from financial data or disclosures. The only contextual hint is the parameter descriptions, which don't constitute usage guidelines.

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