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

The annotations already state that this tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and does not access external services, but the description adds real information beyond them: the data source (보건복지부·복지로 기준표), the caveat that local-government tables exist only for human-verified regions, and the explicit rule that local subsidies are excluded from the total. These details are important for correctly interpreting the returned numbers. The description does not specify the shape of the response, but with no output schema in play that omission is minor.

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 dense sentence, but it puts the core action (customized calculation of central-government benefits) first, followed by a description of the auxiliary outputs and a caveat about data provenance. Every clause carries information, but the sentence is long enough that readability suffers slightly.

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 4-parameter computation tool that has no output schema, the description covers what matters: what is calculated (the lifetime total and the remaining amount), what is returned alongside it (local tables and programs), and how the numbers should be interpreted (local amounts are excluded from the total). It stops short of describing the response fields or how the result is structured, but the overall picture is adequate for correct invocation.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for 100% of the parameters, including the examples and ranges of each parameter. The description restates the same three dimensions (지역, 출생 순서, 아이 월령) but adds no extra format, default, or interaction guidance beyond the schema. Because the schema does most of the work here, a baseline score of 3 is 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 names a concrete verb and resource: it computes the central-government cash benefits (첫만남이용권·부모급여·아동수당) so that the lifetime total for the birth and the amount still remaining can be calculated. It also makes clear that it returns local-government amount tables and local support programs, so an agent can tell it apart from purely listing or search tools. The only weakness is that it never explicitly contrasts this tool with the sibling tools get_support_programs and list_regions, which overlap in scope.

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 trigger conditions are only implied: an agent could reasonably infer from the inputs that this tool should be used when you want to calculate support amounts for a given region, birth order, and child age. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool to use instead when only program listings are wanted. The tool works, but the caller has to infer when to use it.

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