payroll.kr_overtime_pay

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed world), and the description adds real behavioral substance: 50%/100% holiday tiers, stacking of overtime and night premiums, the ≤4 employee exemption, and round-up-to-won behavior. It does not address validation failures or edge conditions such as negative or malformed Decimal input.

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 purpose and legal basis, then packs calculation rules and pitfalls with no filler sentences. The clauses are long and dense, but each one carries actionable information.

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 13 parameters and a complex statutory calculation, the description covers the core premium logic well and the output schema removes the need to explain return values. However, seven parameters that materially affect the result (weekly_contract_hours, monthly_standard_hours, weekly_paid_hours, daily_contract_hours, as_of, include_proposed, year) are never explained, leaving real gaps.

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% across 13 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains ordinary_wage, wage_unit with the 209-hour monthly conversion, Decimal-string hours, holiday_hours_by_day as a per-day list, and the employee_count threshold, but leaves year, as_of, include_proposed, weekly_paid_hours, daily_contract_hours, weekly_contract_hours, and monthly_standard_hours entirely undefined.

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 (계산한다) and a precisely scoped resource (한국 연장·야간·휴일근로수당) and anchors it to Labor Standards Act Art. 56 and Enforcement Decree Art. 6, which clearly separates it from siblings like payroll.kr_weekly_holiday_pay or payroll.kr_salary.

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?

Gives concrete usage context — how to pass holiday hours (per-day list, not overtime_hours) and the explicit warning that duplicating holiday hours into overtime_hours causes double premiums. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when…' comparison to sibling payroll tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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