payroll.kr_weekly_holiday_pay

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and closed-world; the description adds the legal eligibility gates, the exact min(...) formula, and the round-up rule, so the agent knows the calculation behavior beyond the safety hints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter definitions and formula, then applicability and exclusion. There is no filler; the legal citations and formula are dense but relevant.

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 complex legal payroll calculation, it covers purpose, eligibility, formula, and the double-count warning; the output schema and annotations cover return values and safety. The main gap is that year, as_of, and include_proposed are not described, which matters if legal version or proposed rules are relevant.

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 defines the key inputs: weekly_contract_hours, hourly_ordinary_wage, perfect_attendance, employed_through_week, and regular_worker_weekly_days via the formula. It leaves year, as_of, and include_proposed unexplained, so it is strong for core parameters but not fully complete.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('한국 주휴수당을 계산한다') and ties it to the relevant Labor Standards Act provisions, making it clearly distinct from sibling payroll tools such as overtime or severance pay.

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 states the target user ('시급제·일급제 근로자용') and an explicit exclusion: adding this to a monthly salary that already includes weekly holiday pay is double counting. It gives eligibility conditions but does not name an alternative sibling tool for monthly-salaried cases.

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