tax.kr_securities_transaction

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior; the description adds substantive traits such as truncation below 1 won, supported years 2023–2026, a rate example, and unsupported transaction types. It does not explain how as_of or include_proposed change the calculation, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and most sentences add useful constraints or parameter meaning. The paragraph is dense but not bloated; legal citations and the rate example are justified, though a parameter-list structure would be slightly clearer.

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?

Output schema handles return values and annotations cover safety, so the description appropriately focuses on calculation scope, inputs, and limitations. Completeness is reduced by the undocumented optional parameters and by not stating how proposed rates are included.

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 defines transfer_amount units, market accepted values including OTC/unlisted, and year as settlement year with a 2023–2026 range, but omits as_of and include_proposed entirely.

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: computes Korean securities transaction tax and rural special tax on stock transfers, with legal citations. The stock-transfer and securities-transaction-tax focus distinguishes it from broader sibling tools such as tax.kr_rural_special_tax or tax.capital_gains_kr.

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 domain context and exclusions: it does not cover ATS trades or tax-exempt transfers, and warns that year must be the settlement year, not the trade execution year. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools for capital-gains or standalone rural special tax cases.

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