assessment_limitation

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real value by disclosing the legal basis (국세기본법 제26조의2) and the rule matrix that determines each outcome, going beyond 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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by labeled 언제/입력/결과 sections makes it easy to scan. It is dense and the trailing rules table is somewhat redundant with the '결과' summary, but each element carries useful 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden and does so, specifying 제첨기간·기산일·만료일 and the legal basis. Everything needed to call it correctly is present.

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 100%, so parameter definitions are already complete, but the description adds meaning by mapping each param to its role (due_date, case, offshore, inheritance_gift) and tying them to the resulting limitation periods.

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+resource: computing the national tax assessment statute of limitations and its expiration date. It is clearly distinct from the many sibling tax calculators because it targets limitation periods rather than income/VAT/penalty computation.

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 '언제' line states the trigger clearly — reverse-calculate the assessment/limitation deadline for tax of any taxable period. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are named, but the use context is unambiguous among siblings.

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