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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the calculation uses a 2026 cap and floor and returns benefit days and total, but it does not state eligibility assumptions, minimum insured-year rules, validation behavior, or what happens when inputs fall outside the benefit scheme.

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 that names the benefit and enumerates the three output quantities. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's result.

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 calculator with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return concepts (daily amount, benefit days, total) and the applicable 2026 cap/floor. It is nearly complete, though it could clarify eligibility or edge-case behavior.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 clearly names the resource (South Korea unemployment benefit / job-seeking allowance) and lists the exact outputs: daily amount with 2026 cap and floor, number of benefit days, and total. It is distinguishable from payroll siblings by domain, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives.

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 siblings such as severance_pay or net_pay, nor any mention of eligibility prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose implies its use, but no explicit usage rules are given.

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