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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent judgment. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the real gate is the income test, high-income periods are excluded from farming years, residence must be within a radius, and converted zones are disqualified after three years.

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 and warning are front-loaded, then supporting legal conditions and routing follow. The English and Korean statements of purpose are somewhat redundant, but the density is justified by the complexity of the tax 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?

For a seven-parameter legal judgment tool with no output schema, the description supplies the core statutory requirements, data needed for the income test, and the next tool to invoke. It still does not describe the return value or explain every parameter, leaving modest gaps.

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 defines yearly_incomes as a list of year/income objects and explains the legal meaning of direct_farming, resides_within_scope, farming_years_claimed, and zone_converted_date. It does not clarify transfer_date or estimated_tax as fully, so it stops short of full coverage.

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 (exemption judgment) and resource (self-cultivated farmland capital gains exemption after 8 years), cites the governing statute, and names the downstream sibling judge_transfer_reduction_limit. An agent can identify the tool's legal target without opening the 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 a clear next-step routing rule: pass results to judge_transfer_reduction_limit because the 100% reduction is capped by §133①. It also describes key eligibility gates and exclusions, but does not explicitly compare against other sibling judgment tools such as judge_farmland_daeto or judge_exemption_requirements.

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