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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true) and closed-world (openWorldHint=false). Beyond that, the description discloses useful behavioral traits: it returns an estimate along with the source and page URL, cites the governing statutes, gives an effective reference date (확인일 2026-10-12), and explicitly labels the result as reference-only (참고용 추정치), which warns the agent not to treat it as an authoritative figure.

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 body repeats the title verbatim as its first sentence, then piles on statutory references and a version date, which crowds out the more useful 'returns an estimate with source and page URL' note. Content is relevant but not front-loaded or tightly edited.

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 simple two-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description covers what matters: the domain, the legal basis, that the output is an estimate, and what accompanies it (source and page URL). The main gap is the absence of any when-to-use guidance relative to its many sibling calculators.

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 100% and the enum meanings (evasion=탈세 제보, hidden=은닉재산, card=카드 결제 거부, public=공익신고, corruption=부패신고) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes the category list from the title and adds no syntax, format, or interpretation guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific resource (Korean whistleblower reward / 신고 포상금·보상금) and enumerates the covered claim types (tax evasion, hidden assets, card refusal, public interest, corruption), which is enough to separate it from the sibling calculators (korea_tax_refund, education_tax_credit, etc.). It also states it 'Returns an estimate,' so the verb is inferable even though the leading text largely restates the title.

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 statement about when to pick this tool over siblings or when it is inappropriate; the only routing signal is the domain (Korean whistleblower rewards) and the note that it mirrors gyesanmate.com/reward/calculator/. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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