search_business_information

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool returns text for the requested information type, and the search/provide semantics imply read-only behavior. However, it omits any details about error handling, date range validation, rate limits, or whether certain companies might have no available data.

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 a one-line purpose, a clear Args list, and a Returns section. It is not overly verbose for the amount of information conveyed, though the enumeration of seven information types is inherently lengthy. Each sentence/line adds value, and it is front-loaded with the purpose statement.

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?

The description covers all four parameters thoroughly and specifies the return type (text), which is sufficient for a straightforward query tool. However, it lacks details on how this tool relates to sibling search tools (e.g., overlap with search_disclosure) and does not explain any constraints on date ranges or company coverage. Given the output schema exists, return values are adequately addressed.

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 input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by detailing every parameter. It gives format examples for dates, explains company_name, and exhaustively enumerates all information_type options with Korean descriptions. This goes well beyond the schema's bare property types.

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: providing a company's business-related status information, with specific information types enumerated. It distinguishes from sibling financial-data tools by focusing on business overview, products, raw materials, sales, risk, contracts, and R&D, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'provide' is somewhat generic but the scope is specific.

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 implies when to use the tool by listing seven information_type categories that narrow the query context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling tools like search_disclosure or search_detailed_financial_data. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, so the guidance is implied rather than direct.

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