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

Annotations already cover the safe/read-only/idempotent profile, but the description adds real domain behavior beyond structure: the 2028-12-31 sunset, the two-tier 300만원 vs 200만원 cap split, and the clawback triggers (3개월 상시거주 미개시, 3년 내 매각·증여·임대). It usefully warns that the result can conflict with the widely-known '200만원 단일' view. It stops short of describing what the judgment output looks like.

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?

Purpose and legal citation are front-loaded, and the dense rule/limit/clawback sentences each carry load. The bilingual, heavily parenthetical compression is efficient but borders on terse, and mixing English headers with Korean body text adds mild parsing friction.

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 9-param judgment tool with no output schema, the description is thorough on the substantive rule, deadline, cap tiers, and clawback. The gaps are the absence of any return-value description and no explanation of how co_owners and computed_tax factor into the judgment.

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 9 params, so the description must carry meaning. It supplies thresholds that map to no_home_history (무주택), acquisition_price (12억 이하), is_minor (미성년자 제외), exclusive_area_m2 (60㎡), in_depopulation_area, and acquired_date (2028 기한). However, co_owners, computed_tax, and house_type are never addressed, and no parameter is referenced by name, leaving the mapping to inference.

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 description states a specific verb (judge) and resource (first-home acquisition tax relief) anchored to statute '지특법 §36의3', and the eligibility framing (무주택 생애최초, 12억 이하, 거주 목적) clearly distinguishes it from siblings like calc_acquisition_tax and judge_acquisition_homes_and_rate.

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?

The description lays out the substantive eligibility conditions of the relief but never says when an agent should call this versus alternatives such as screen_relief_candidates, judge_exemption_requirements, or calc_acquisition_tax. Usage is implied by context rather than routed explicitly.

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