realestate.kr_dti

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds real behavioral detail: HALF_EVEN rounding to 4 decimals, that cap is null and within_cap true in the unlimited case, and the annual-vs-monthly input pitfall. It doesn't explain how year/as_of/include_proposed affect the computed cap, leaving some behavior opaque.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the formula then the cap rules then the misuse caveat; every clause carries information. Slight density from the Korean parenthetical abbreviations, but nothing is wasted.

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 values need not be spelled out, and the description does explain the cap/within_cap pair. However, for a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the roles of year, as_of, and include_proposed are left to guesswork, which is a real completeness 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies the units and meaning of monthly_debt_payment and monthly_income (원 단위 문자열) and implicitly covers is_regulated/is_capital_area via the cap rules, but year, as_of, and include_proposed are never explained, leaving 3 of 7 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 verb and resource plus the exact formula (월 원리금 상환액 / 월 소득) and that it returns a pass/fail against a cap. The formula itself differentiates it from DSR and LTV siblings even without naming them.

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 the regulatory cap rules that determine outcomes (40% regulated, 60% capital-area apartment, unlimited outside) and an explicit misuse warning about entering annual amounts in the monthly field. It does not explicitly say when to prefer kr_dsr or kr_ltv instead, so a sibling-selection statement is missing.

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