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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavior: benefits are computed month by month and are capped, and the 6+6 scheme is modeled. It omits the cap values, the assumed legal rules, and what the response contains, but for a pure calculator the core behavioral profile is conveyed.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the jurisdiction, benefit, and scheme scope with no filler. It is a fragment rather than a well-formed statement, which costs a point, but nothing is wasted.

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 5-parameter calculation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description says enough to know what is modeled and that output is monthly with caps. It stops short of specifying the cap amounts or the exact return shape, which an agent might still want.

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%, so parameters are already documented, and the description adds only the scheme names (6+6, single parents) that map to the mode enum. It adds no detail on caps, wage basis, or how months/spouseMonths interact, so the 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?

Names the specific benefit (South Korea parental leave benefit from employment insurance) and its computation style (month by month with caps), plus the scheme variants it covers. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like unemployment_benefit or annual_leave. It never uses an explicit verb such as 'calculate', so it reads as a topic label rather than an action, which keeps it from 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?

The mention of the 6+6 both-parents scheme and single parents implicitly tells the agent when this tool applies, but there is no explicit 'use this when X, not Y' routing or prerequisite statement relative to siblings. Usage is implied by domain coverage rather than stated.

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