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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, and '아무것도 바꾸지 않는다' merely restates that. The one piece of genuine added context is '부가세 포함 금액' (amounts include VAT), which matters because there is no output schema. No pagination, precision, or rounding behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (what is computed, what the returned amount includes, that nothing is mutated), with the calculation front-loaded. Nothing redundant.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive calculator with no output schema this covers the essentials, and naming the three tiers hints at the result structure. It could still say whether three separate amounts are returned and how rounding works, so it falls just short of complete.

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 100% and the single integer parameter 'people' is already documented with an example. The description only restates that headcount drives the calculation, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (요금을 계산한다) and resource (three named ballot-box pricing tiers) plus the input that drives it (투표 인원). An agent can tell immediately that this is a read-only pricing calculator, distinct from the meeting/voting-action 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?

Usage is implied by the phrase '투표 인원으로 ... 요금을 계산한다' — call it when you need a price for a given headcount. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to alternatives, but no sibling offers pricing either, so the gap is minor.

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