payroll.kr_education_deduction

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the description correctly spends its space on computation behavior: 15% rate, per-person caps by category (3M/9M/unlimited), multiplication by counts, and truncation below 1 won. It omits how include_proposed and as_of affect the calculation, 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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and statutory basis, then parameter shape, then formula/limits, then the counts pitfall. Every sentence earns its place; it is only slightly dense in the limits sentence.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the core computation is well covered. But for a policy-sensitive tool, the semantics of as_of and especially include_proposed (proposed law changes?) are critical and left unexplained, leaving a real gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does real work: it enumerates the allowed expense keys (self, preschool, elementary, middle_high, university, disabled_special), states amounts are KRW strings, and defines counts as per-category headcount. But year, as_of, and include_proposed remain completely opaque in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (교육비 세액공제를 구한다) with the governing statute (소득세법 제59조의4제3항), which clearly separates it from payroll.kr_medical_deduction and payroll.kr_donation_deduction. It does not name a sibling or scope boundary explicitly, so it stops just short of 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?

Explains how to populate expenses and counts and warns that omitting counts when merging children's expenses applies only one person's cap – useful invocation guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to alternatives such as payroll.kr_year_end_tax_settlement or tax.kr_education_tax_add.

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