check_business_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the operation is a read-only '조회' and lists the returned fields (status, tax type, closure date). However, it omits permission requirements, rate limits, and behavior for active or not-found businesses, leaving notable gaps.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. The first conveys the core function and outputs, and the second offers a lightweight usage-frequency signal. No filler or redundancy exists.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and expected return fields. It falls short only in not explicitly addressing sibling-tool selection or edge-case behavior, but the tool is simple enough that the description is largely complete.

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 single parameter business_no is already described as '사업자등록번호'. The description adds no additional format, validation, or usage detail 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 uses a specific verb ('조회' / query) and clearly names the resource and scope: business closure status, tax type, and closure date. This distinguishes it from siblings like batch_check_status and check_invoice_eligibility by specifying exactly what it returns.

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 only usage-related hint is '호출 빈도가 가장 높은 도구' (most frequently called tool), which is not actionable guidance. It does not explain when to use this tool versus batch_check_status, check_invoice_eligibility, or verify_business, and no exclusions are given.

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