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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the included deductions and the 2026 NTS simplified withholding table, but it does not explain output format, rounding, or assumptions beyond the deduction list.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant filler. Country, employee scope, calculation basis, and included deductions are all established efficiently.

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 six-parameter financial calculator with a fully documented schema but no output schema, the description covers the calculation basis and deductions. It leaves output representation and a few assumptions implicit, but the schema supplies the detailed parameter semantics.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including defaults and the annualSalary/monthlySalary override. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond naming deduction categories, 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 states a specific calculation and resource: South Korean monthly net salary for an employee, including the deductions that produce it. It is clear what the tool computes, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as social_insurance or retirement_income_tax.

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 statement, no exclusions, and no routing to alternative sibling tools. The agent must infer from the name and description that this is for take-home pay rather than separate insurance, tax, or severance calculations.

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