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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the post-hoc clawback under §70④⑤ (2-month 추징 plus interest-equivalent) if requirements fall short, and the separate cap requiring a hand-off tool. This discloses consequences of the judgment that no annotation conveys.

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-loads the legal basis, then uses a clean numbered ①-⑤ enumeration of requirements followed by the §69 contrast and cap hand-off. Dense but every section earns its place; slightly heavy but proportionate to a complex multi-criteria judgment.

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 should hint at results; it instead confirms the workflow (hand off to judge_transfer_reduction_limit for final reduction) and enumerates all conditional branches, which is complete enough for correct invocation even though the return shape is not described.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It implicitly maps several inputs to legal requirements (4+ years residence, 1-year/2-year expropriation acquisition window, area 2/3 or value 1/2 ratios, combined 8-year farming), but never names or directly documents parameters such as estimate_tax or total_farming_years, leaving mapping inferential.

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 (judge/판정) and resource (farmland substitution exemption, Special Taxation Act §70) with the governing article and decree. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling judge_farmland_reduction (§69) by noting the residence-period and 8-year-timing differences, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Provides clear usage context: it lists the five qualification conditions (①-⑤) and states that even at a 100% rate the §133①2호가목 5-period/100M cap applies, directing the agent to judge_transfer_reduction_limit for the final figure. It does not frame explicit when-not-to-use exclusions beyond the §69 contrast, so it stops short of the top mark.

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