donation_limit

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/no-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive domain behavior beyond that: the applied rates (특례 50%, 일반 10%), the carryforward handling, and the year range. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 with purpose, then cleanly organized into 언제/입력/결과 blocks. The parameter list is somewhat long but each mapping earns its place given the generic schema labels; no filler sentences.

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-value burden and does state the results (한도·한도초과·이월 손금산입) plus the legal citation. Inputs are fully mapped. Minor gap: no note on output units or the interaction between carried_loss and the limits.

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 baseline is 3, but the schema's own descriptions are mostly generic ('금액(원)'). The description supplies the real semantics for each name (base_income=과세표준 계산 전 소득금액, special=특례기부금 지출액, carried_loss=결손금, etc.), adding genuine meaning over the schema.

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?

The description names a specific verb+resource (기부금 손금산입 한도 = donation deduction limit) and enumerates the exact outputs (한도·한도초과·이월 손금산입). It also anchors the tool to a legal basis (법인세법 제24조), which clearly separates it from sibling limit tools like entertainment_limit and loss_carryforward_limit.

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?

An explicit '언제' clause states when to use it: 'compute the limit and excess when deducting donations.' This is clear contextual guidance, but no when-not conditions or named alternatives (e.g. when to prefer loss_carryforward_limit) are given.

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