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

Annotations already establish a safe, read-only, idempotent profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds substantive context beyond them: the sole machine-checkable threshold derives from VAT Act rules and is screening-only rather than determinative, that residential resale counts as dealer activity (correcting a common misconception), and that divergent results emit two scenarios. This is meaningful behavioral guidance not captured by the annotations.

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 English sentence is front-loaded and clean, but the Korean block restates the purpose and then layers dense legal caveats, making the whole somewhat heavy with partial bilingual redundancy. Every clause carries information, yet the structure could be tighter for an agent parsing it.

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?

No output schema exists and the safety profile is covered by annotations, so the description focuses on legal basis and output convention, which is helpful for a complex judgment tool. Still, with six params at 0% schema coverage, the description does not fully document the inputs that drive the judgment, leaving a gap an agent must bridge.

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 the burden. It gives semantic grounding to the counting parameters by explaining the 6-month period with 1+ acquisition and 2+ sales, and touches is_residential_resale via the residential-resale rule. But is_self_built_sale, has_business_registration, and business_purpose_advertised are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 opening line states a precise judgment question with both outcomes named: dealer (business income) vs individual (capital gains). The Korean line reinforces the verb+resource and ties it to a specific decision node (트리⑥, P0 Q0). An agent immediately knows this is a classification/screening tool, distinct from the calc_* tax-computation siblings.

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 labels itself a screening tool (스크리닝 전용, 단정 금지), which implies when it is appropriate, and it prescribes an output convention when results diverge. However, it never names an alternative sibling (e.g., calc_dealer_comparative_tax) or states an explicit when-not-to-use condition. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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