check_business_status

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already in the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context by revealing return fields and the meaning of status_code values (01, 02, 03). It also discloses the special behavior for unregistered numbers via tax_type. This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide, though it does not mention rate limits or auth requirements.

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 purpose, followed by useful return-value semantics. The bilingual repetition ('사업자등록 상태를 조회합니다' and 'Check business registration status') is slightly redundant, but every other sentence contributes meaningful 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 a single well-documented parameter, an output schema, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description covers what matters: purpose, status-code meanings, and the unregistered-number edge case. The main completeness gap is the lack of sibling-tool routing guidance, but that does not block correct invocation.

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 already documents the sole parameter fully: comma-separated business numbers, max 100, hyphens allowed. The description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the high schema coverage baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: '사업자등록 상태를 조회합니다' / 'Check business registration status.' It also signals what kind of result the caller gets through status_code semantics. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like validate_business or batch_validate_businesses, so it misses the top score.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus validate_business or batch_validate_businesses. There are no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites stated. The agent must infer the difference from the tool name and sibling names alone.

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