batch_check_status

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

With no annotations, the description relies on the verb '조회' (lookup) to imply a read-only operation and states the batch limit of up to 100. It does not disclose return format, error behavior, or operational requirements, leaving some gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core function and use case without unnecessary detail. It is appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool.

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 required parameter and absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the batch limit and purpose. It does not elaborate on response content, but for a straightforward lookup tool this is acceptable.

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 schema description covers the parameter fully ('사업자번호 목록 (최대 100)'), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond confirming the batch use case, matching the array structure.

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 specifies '사업자 상태 일괄 조회' (batch lookup of business status) with a max of 100, clearly stating the verb, resource, and batch scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_business_status' by emphasizing batch capability.

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 indicates the intended use case ('경비처리·정산 자동화용' – for expense processing and settlement automation), providing context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the batch nature implies it's for bulk queries.

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