tax.kr_simplified_vat

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds substantial behavior: the exact formula, 0.5% invoice deduction, card-sales credit, floor rounding, the 4,800만원 exemption returning 0, and the 1억4백만원 threshold flagging behavior. This is rich context beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the purpose then packs formula, rounding, exemption, and threshold rules efficiently into a few dense sentences. Slightly dense but every sentence carries functional information.

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?

For a complex statutory calculation, the description covers the core mechanics and edge cases, and since an output schema exists it needn't explain return values (though it helpfully explains threshold_exceeded). The main gap is the four undocumented input parameters.

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 coverage is 0% (only titles), so the description must compensate. It explains supply_value (Decimal in won), input_tax_amount, card_sales_amount, and especially prior_year_supply's omission behavior, but leaves year, as_of, include_proposed, and restricted_business entirely 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 (계산한다) and resource (한국 간이과세자 부가가치세) with legal citations (Articles 46/61/63/69). It distinguishes itself from general-VAT siblings by explicitly saying it cannot be used for general taxpayer calculation.

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?

Explicit exclusions are present: '일반과세자 계산에는 쓸 수 없다' and the note that exceeding the 1억4백만원 threshold still computes, only flagging threshold_exceeded. It also clarifies the prior_year_supply omission fallback, though it does not name a specific alternative tool to route to.

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