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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core formula and mentions retirement income tax, but it does not say whether the result is gross or net, how service years are rounded, or whether the tool has no side effects.

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?

It is one front-loaded sentence, and every clause (jurisdiction, formula, tax, inputs) is relevant. The density is justified by the statutory calculation being described.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description never states the return shape (gross amount, tax breakdown, or net pay) or key eligibility assumptions. Adequate for a simple calculator, but not fully complete.

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% and already documents all five parameters. The description restates the hire date, last working day, and last-3-months pay basis, but it does not explain how annualBonus or annualLeavePay feed into the average wage, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 exact statutory benefit (South Korea severance pay) and gives the core formula, so the resource is unambiguous. However, it never uses a clear action verb such as calculate or return, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like 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 or when-not guidance. Even though 'statutory' and the Korean jurisdiction narrow the domain, the agent is not told whether to call this versus retirement_income_tax or net_pay.

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