verify_business

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the representative name is immediately discarded and not stored, which is a meaningful privacy behavior. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, if it triggers external calls, or if there are any side effects, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the function, the second provides a key privacy detail. No wasted words.

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 tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description explains the verification logic and data handling but does not describe the return value or result format. It mentions '일치 여부' (match status) implicitly but does not specify whether the result is a boolean, status object, or something else, leaving a completeness gap.

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%, providing full details for all three parameters (business_no, opening_date, representative_name). The description lists the same fields without adding new format or semantic details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verifies Korean business registration info by checking if input (business number, representative name, opening date) matches National Tax Service records. It distinctly identifies the resource and action, and the mention of matching against tax data differentiates it from sibling tools like check_business_status or batch_check_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 implies usage for authenticating business registration details but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or any exclusions. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternatives.

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