payroll.kr_gross_from_net

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

Adds useful behavioral detail beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: it finds the smallest integer gross via fixed-point iteration and returns both achieved net and residual, warning that an exact match may be impossible. This explains the solver's non-obvious semantics and edge case, though return-field details are left to the output schema.

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?

Front-loads the reverse-calculation purpose and keeps to four dense sentences with no filler. The fixed-point and residual details are useful, though the paragraph is slightly packed.

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?

Given seven parameters and zero schema coverage, the definition is only partly complete: it covers the critical input unit and the exactness caveat, and the output schema covers return values. It remains insufficient for an agent needing to understand the other six inputs before invoking the tool.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies the key net_monthly parameter as a KRW string containing monthly net pay, but says nothing about year, as_of, children_8_20, meal_allowance, num_dependents, or include_proposed, leaving six parameters undocumented.

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 reverse operation (역산) from net monthly pay to gross monthly pay, and contrasts it implicitly with payroll.kr_salary, the forward calculation it iterates against. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling forward-salary tool without opening the schema.

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?

Tells the caller to supply a monthly net amount, explicitly not an annual salary, and to check the exact flag because not every target net is attainable. It lacks an explicit 'if you have gross and want net, use kr_salary instead' routing statement, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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