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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses that the result is an estimate ('Returns an estimate') and that it carries a source and page URL, but says nothing about what is presumed, rate tables used, or how the legal citation affects results.

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?

Reasonably short and front-loaded with the title, but a large share of the text is Korean legal citation and source boilerplate (지방세법 제13조의2...) that carries little selection value for an agent. Not wasteful enough to be penalized heavily, but not tight.

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 an 8-parameter financial calculator with 13% schema coverage and no output schema, the description omits parameter meaning, output shape beyond 'an estimate', and any assumptions. The agent lacks the information needed to call it confidently.

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 only 13% — just 'houses' is documented — leaving price, jeonse, years, over_85m2, other_costs, adjusted_area and growth_percent unexplained in both schema and description. The description mentions acquisition tax and brokerage but never maps them to inputs, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 parenthetical '(Korean gap investment: acquisition tax, brokerage, cash needed)' gives a specific verb-like outcome set, and '실투자금' names the resource. An agent can tell it computes a gap-investment cash estimate. No sibling differentiation is needed because none of the listed siblings do this.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The '투자 권유 아님' line is a legal disclaimer, not usage guidance. The agent is left to infer that this applies to Korean property gap investment.

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