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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: which exemptions are auto-applied, the boundary date 2025-01-02 changing 1억↔2억, that 임대목적 취득 is allowed, and that gift follow a distinct 무상취득 track. It adds real value, though it omits a statement about the output result's shape (no output schema exists).

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 purpose is front-loaded in the opening line, and legal citations are compact. However the body is dense and bilingual with largely duplicated English/Korean phrasing, and several sentences carry overlapping legal context that could be trimmed without losing invocation-critical meaning.

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 12-param, 0%-coverage, annotation-only, no-output-schema legal computation tool, the description conveys the domain logic, auto-applied rules, and the pivotal acquire_date requirement well. Residual gaps are the undocumented prev_disposal/area parameters and any indication of the returned result, keeping it just under fully 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 0% across 12 params, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: detailed structure of each `homes` element, the criticality and semantics of acquire_date, gift_std_value's 3억 threshold, and the meaning of disposal_to_same_household, new_home_for_rental, and is_gift. It leaves exclusive_area_m2, prev_disposal_date, prev_disposal_kind, and is_corporation largely unexplained, so the compensation is incomplete but strong.

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+resource: counts homes for acquisition tax and decides the 1/8/12% rate, plus temporary two-home and corporate rules. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling judge_temporary_two_homes and from transfer-tax rules by explicitly noting the acquisition two-home relief is separate from transfer tax §155①. It stops short of naming alternatives outright, so not a 5.

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?

It gives conditions under which internal rules apply (low-price housing thresholds, gift track, corporate rules) and mandates including acquire_date, which is de facto usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over calc_acquisition_tax, judge_temporary_two_homes, or count_heavy_homes, leaving alternative routing to inference.

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