realestate.kr_dsr

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds non-obvious behavior: HALF_EVEN 4-decimal rounding, the 40%/50% limit split, and the important caveat that mortgage_region returns a stress-rate floor without adding it to the payment. It is silent on how year/as_of/include_proposed change behavior, which is the remaining transparency gap.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: formula first, then rounding and limits, then the stress-rate caveat, then the misuse case. Every clause adds operational information with no padding.

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-value description is unnecessary, and the core computation is well covered. But for a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves year, as_of (likely versioned limit rules) and include_proposed unexplained, which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden; it explains is_nonbank (2금융권 50% limit) and partially mortgage_region, and clarifies annual vs monthly units via the misuse example. Three parameters (year, as_of, include_proposed) get no explanation at all, so the compensation is only partial.

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 (calculate) and resource (DSR) and even spells out the ratio definition (annual principal+interest / annual income) plus the verdict it produces. An agent can distinguish this from realestate.kr_dti or realestate.kr_ltv by the formula and the 40/50% limit rule alone.

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 clear usage context (limit check, bank vs nonbank thresholds) and an explicit misuse warning about mixing monthly payment with annual income. It does not, however, route the agent between this and the sibling DTI/LTV calculators, so the when-not guidance is implicit rather than stated.

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