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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns an estimate (not a definitive figure), cites a specific government notice (교육부고시 제2026-12호), and warns that rates must be confirmed against the latest announcement.

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 is front-loaded in two languages, which is effective. However, the trailing URL, citation code, and '상환율은 최신 공지 확인' clause are loosely attached and add clutter without organizing information for the caller.

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 financial calculator with no output schema and 14% parameter coverage, the description omits essential guidance on how the inputs drive the estimate. It states the return shape (estimate with source and page URL) but leaves the parameter surface largely unexplained.

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 only 14% — just one of seven parameters (gross_salary) is documented in the schema. The description does nothing to compensate: it never explains type, degree, principal, defer_years, repay_years, or rate_percent, leaving most inputs semantically opaque.

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 the resource (Korean student loan repayment) and the two supported modes (general/standard vs income-contingent ICL), which is enough to tell what the tool computes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling calculators, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions. The only routing hint is the implicit general/ICL mode split, which is left to the caller to infer from the schema rather than the description.

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