realestate.kr_subscription_score

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious computation behavior: spouse savings are converted at 50% with a 3-point cap, savings scoring caps at 17 points, and the homeless period is counted from age 30 or the marriage registration date rather than total age. It does not state the output shape, but an output schema exists.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the scoring breakdown, then input conventions, then the caps, then the edge case and misuse warning. Every sentence carries information; the only minor cost is that the parameter conventions and the warnings are interleaved rather than grouped.

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 explained, and the scoring rules are well covered. However, with 8 parameters and no schema descriptions, leaving year, as_of, and include_proposed undefined means an agent cannot confidently construct a call for a tool whose rules vary by year.

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 successfully defines homeless_months, savings_months, spouse_savings_months, dependents, and homeless_period_applicable, but leaves three parameters — year, as_of, and include_proposed — completely unexplained, which is significant for a rules-versioned calculation where year likely selects the applicable regulation.

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 names a precise verb and resource (청약 가점제 점수 계산) and even enumerates the scoring components and their maximums (무주택기간 32, 부양가족 35, 청약저축 17, 합계 84). No sibling tool in the realestate.* family covers subscription points, so an agent can distinguish it immediately from kr_dsr, kr_dti, or kr_acquisition_tax.

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 gives concrete input conventions (periods as integer months as of the announcement date, dependents as a count) and an explicit exclusion: homeowners or unmarried applicants under 30 should pass homeless_period_applicable=false for zero points. It also warns against the common misuse of entering full age as homeless_months. It never names an alternative tool, but no sibling competes for this calculation.

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