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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety profile, yet the description adds real behavioral content: the exact max() formula, which asset classes trigger the heavy rate (§104①1·8·10, §104⑦), that the caller must supply already-fixed rates, and that both scenarios are always returned because their difference is the decision value.

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?

Front-loaded with the EN/KR statement of purpose, then the formula and per-parameter notes, then the return behavior. Dense with legal citations and math but each sentence contributes; nothing is padded.

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 no output schema, the description steps in by stating that both scenarios are always returned and that their difference is the decision value. Combined with the formula and asset-scope rules, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret it correctly, though it says nothing about the caller's responsibility to fix tax rates beyond a single aside.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it largely does: it documents the item shape of housing_trade_profits ([{라벨, 매매차익, 양도세율}]) and tax_brackets ([{upto, rate, deduction}]), and conveys the meaning of the two scalar params through the formula (종합소득 산출세액 / 과세표준). Key names are English while described in Korean, a minor mismatch.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: comparative taxation computation for real estate dealers under Income Tax Act §64, with the decision it supports (whether switching to business-status avoids the heavy rate). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling calculators by being the §64 comparative-tax one, though it never names a sibling to differentiate against explicitly.

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?

One line hints at the decision context ('사업자 전환으로 중과세율을 피할 수 있는지 계산'), which implies when to reach for it. But there is no statement of when-not to use it, no prerequisites, and no routing to the many sibling calc_/judge_ tools for the underlying determinations.

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