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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral content: the computation (annual gift benefit = loan × 4.6% − actual interest), the 10M exclusion threshold, the ~217M free-loan equivalent, and the fact that it returns flags tied to the §45 acquisition-funds presumption defense.

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 and compact for a tax-screening tool; the formula and thresholds earn their space. Bilingual redundancy and heavy statutory shorthand make it slightly dense, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only judge tool with no output schema, the description supplies the rules (rate, threshold), the computation, and the nature of the returned flags, which is enough for correct invocation. Minor gaps remain around input units and how the flag output should be interpreted.

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 compensate. The formula (대출금 × 4.6% − 실제 이자) implies loan_amount and the interest rate, which partially maps to the two params, but it never states units, format, or the meaning of agreed_interest_rate=0 (i.e., an interest-free loan).

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?

Names a specific verb+resource pair ('Family loan vs gift screening') grounded in a specific statute (Inheritance and Gift Tax Act art. 41-4) with the 4.6% benchmark and 10M won threshold. This is far more specific than the generic calc_gift_tax / judge_gift_tax siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the topical specificity (screening family loans against gift-tax re-characterization), but there is no explicit 'use this when X, not calc_gift_tax' guidance and no stated exclusions. An agent infers the context rather than being told it.

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