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

With annotations already covering readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, the description adds substantial context beyond those hints. It warns that all return values are estimates because valuation is determined by appraisal and there are zero judicial precedents in this area, specifies that normal_rise_rate must be fetched externally and not cached, clarifies that this is a levy (부담금) not a tax, and names the primary obligor as the association (조합). This is rich, decision-relevant behavioral information.

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 long but densely packed and front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence. The bilingual presentation (English summary followed by Korean legal detail) introduces minor redundancy, but almost every sentence contributes formula, rate bands, exemptions, or critical warnings. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the domain and avoids fluff.

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 high complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, a specialized Korean levy), the description is remarkably complete. It supplies the legal basis, the computational formula, current rate bands with a warning against outdated numbers, reduction rules, and a crucial limitation that return values are all estimates. It also notes the levy's nature and obligor. No output schema exists, but the description adequately sets expectations about the returned data's reliability.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It explains the core formula (excess profit = end price − (start price + normal rise + development cost)), thereby giving meaning to end_price_total, start_price_total, normal_rise_rate, and development_cost. It also decodes member_count via per-capita average profit, ties one_home_holding_years to the 10–70% long-holding reduction schedule, and links age_at_end to the 60+ payment deferral. However, parameters like management_plan_applied_date and the exact role/format of start_date and end_date are left unexplained, leaving a few gaps.

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 states a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource (the reconstruction excess-profit levy, 재건축부담금), and it enumerates the exact components covered: exemptions, base, rate bands, reductions. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are either different tax calculators or judgment helpers. An agent can immediately tell this tool computes the levy.

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 by describing the levy calculation context and legal basis, but it never explicitly states when to call this tool versus alternatives like judge_reconstruction_membership_transfer or the other calc_* tools. It provides no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative selection criteria. The implied context is sufficient for an agent to infer it should be used to estimate this particular levy, but explicit routing guidance is absent.

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