batch_validate_businesses

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, so the description does not need to re-assert safety. It adds useful behavioral detail by disclosing the exact return shape: request_count, valid_count, and results[] with business_number, valid, valid_msg, and status. It does not mention external API dependency or rate limits, but the read-only annotation lowers the burden.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Korean/English duplication is slightly redundant, but the content is compact and the return-structure line is useful and not padded.

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 single parameter, full schema coverage, and existing output schema, the description provides enough context: it names the batch scope, the input as JSON, and the key return fields. It could be more explicit about when to use single vs batch, but that gap belongs to usage guidance rather than completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the required and optional fields plus an example. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific operation—'Batch validate business registrations'—and reinforces it in Korean as validating multiple business registration records at once. This clearly distinguishes it from the singular sibling validate_business and from check_business_status by emphasizing batch verification.

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 usage when multiple business registrations need validation at once, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer the single-record sibling validate_business or check_business_status. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided beyond the 'batch' connotation.

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