validate_business

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only and open-world, and the description adds helpful behavioral context by explaining the valid code semantics (01=match, 02=mismatch) and that status is present on match. There is no contradiction with the annotations, and no hidden side effects are obscured.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and includes only the most decision-relevant output semantics. The bilingual repetition is compact and does not waste space.

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?

With a fully described 9-parameter schema, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the core call behavior and result meanings. The only notable gap is not explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over its siblings, but the singular validation scope is largely inferable.

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 gives 100% per-parameter descriptions (business_number 10 digits, start_date YYYYMMDD, etc.), so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific action and object: performing business-registration authenticity verification ('사업자등록정보 진위확인을 수행합니다'). It also states the key output distinction (valid=01 match, 02 mismatch), which clearly differentiates this single-validation tool from siblings like batch_validate_businesses and check_business_status.

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 clearly indicates this is for validating business registration info, and the returned valid/status fields imply a single-record check. However, it never explicitly states when to choose validate_business over batch_validate_businesses or check_business_status, leaving the routing mostly to inference from the tool name.

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