entertainment_limit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that by naming the outputs (limit, excess/non-deductible, legal basis under Corporate Tax Act Art. 25 / Decree Art. 42), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Well-structured with explicit 언제/입력/결과 (when/input/result) sections that are front-loaded and scannable. Minor redundancy in the closing sentence, which restates the purpose already given in the opening line.

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 deterministic tax-calculation tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers the trigger context, the full input mapping, and the expected outputs plus legal basis. Complete enough to invoke correctly; only the sibling distinction is absent.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description compensates for the schema's generic '금액(원)' labels by mapping Korean tax concepts to parameter names ('수입금액(일반) → general_revenue', '지출액(접대비) → expensed', etc.). This adds genuine semantic meaning over the terse schema descriptions.

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 ('기업업무추진비 한도와 한도초과액 계산' / calculate the entertainment expense limit and excess). An agent can tell it computes a deduction cap, but the description never distinguishes it from the very similar sibling 'entertainment_adjustment', which appears in the same list.

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 explicit context through the '언제' (when) cue: during corporate tax adjustment to obtain the non-deductible entertainment amount, and to check whether entertainment exceeds the limit. Clear usage context, but no when-not condition and no pointer to the near-duplicate sibling 'entertainment_adjustment'.

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