tax.kr_corporate

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the description is free to spend its words on domain behavior — progressive bracket base tax, subtraction of reductions, and the minimum-tax floor that can exclude reductions. That is genuinely useful context beyond structured fields, though it says nothing about supported year ranges or the shape/failure modes of the result.

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 purpose and statute citations before drifting into parameter edge cases. Efficient, though the middle sentence packs several conditions and could be split for scanability.

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 described, and the core computation chain is covered. Still, for an 11-parameter statutory calculator, the silent parameters (as_of, include_proposed, rounding, decimals) and the absence of any statement about effective-year/version behavior leave real gaps.

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 11 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no enums, the description must carry the parameter burden. It well explains taxable_income, pre_deduction_income, reductions, is_small_rental_corp, is_small, and sme_graduation_period, but leaves as_of, decimals, rounding, include_proposed, and the year range undocumented — roughly half the surface.

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 ('한국 법인세를 계산한다') and pins it to statutory articles (법인세법 제55조, 조세특례제한법 제132조), which unambiguously separates it from income tax, gift tax, and the other tax.* siblings.

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?

The context of use is clear from the statute-scoped framing, and the final sentence tells the caller the condition under which pre_deduction_income must be supplied. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., personal income tax vs. corporate tax), so it misses the top band.

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