payroll.kr_bonus_tax

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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the description is not required to cover safety. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the averaging calculation sequence, simple-method treatment, won-string inputs, truncation below one won, and that non-taxable bonuses must be handled separately. The final sentence about non-taxable bonuses is somewhat ambiguous, which keeps it from a 5.

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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the method mechanics, then unit and rounding rules. Little is wasted, though the non-taxable sentence is unclear enough to cost a point.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a 9-parameter tax calculation, however, the definition leaves five parameters undocumented and gives an ambiguous instruction on non-taxable bonuses, so it is only partially 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 9 parameters. It meaningfully explains method and payment_period_months and clarifies that bonus_amount and monthly_salary are won strings, but year, as_of, dependents, children_8_20, and include_proposed receive no explanation anywhere.

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 verb and resource: computing bonus withholding tax (상여금 원천징수세액) via the simplified wage income tax table. It distinguishes this from generic salary or withholding siblings by focusing on bonus proration, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

It explains the two method choices and when averaging applies by default (Income Tax Act Article 136(1)(1)), but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as tax.kr_withholding_simple or payroll.kr_salary, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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