realestate.kr_transfer_tax

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 real behavioral detail: amounts are won-unit strings and tax output is HALF_UP rounded to `decimals`. It does not discuss failure modes or how the delegation to tax.capital_gains_kr behaves, but nothing contradicts the 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 tight sentences ordered purpose → units/rounding → parameter semantics → misuse case, with no filler. The misuse warning is deliberately placed last, which works as a guardrail.

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 needn't be described, and the tax-regime and unit semantics are well covered. However, for an 8-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the unexplained as_of, year, and include_proposed parameters leave a real gap for correct invocation.

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 8 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies the genuinely ambiguous ones — sale_price/acquisition_price are won-unit strings, decimals controls HALF_UP rounding, and is_one_house selects the tax regime — but leaves year, as_of, and include_proposed completely unexplained.

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: delegate the Korean real-estate transfer income tax calculation to tax.capital_gains_kr and tag the result with domain/module markers. It also names its sibling tax.capital_gains_kr and explains the boundary, though what the 'domain, module 표식' actually means for the caller stays vague.

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?

Explicitly splits usage by is_one_house (true = 1세대 1주택 exempt/high-value apportionment/holding-residence deduction; false = non-housing land/building). It also names a concrete when-NOT case — multi-house, 분양권, 미등기 transfers — and points the agent to tax.capital_gains_kr directly instead.

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