inheritance_tax

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a pure calculator. The description adds useful behavioral scope: it applies only to resident decedents and enumerates the categories of deductions and credits handled, which goes 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-loads purpose, then clearly separates '언제:' (when), '입력:' (input), and '결과:' (result) sections. For a 31-parameter tool, it is dense but well-organized with no wasted 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?

Given 31 parameters, no output schema, and a complex tax calculation, the description adequately covers inputs at a high level and explicitly lists the return values (taxable amount, deductions, tax base, computed tax, credits, payable tax, deduction details, basis). It could explain a few more edge cases but is largely complete.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description maps key concepts to parameters (estate_value, year, deemed_estate, presumed_items) and explains the spouse.legal_share format, but this largely repeats schema content. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: calculating inheritance tax for a resident decedent, covering taxable estate, deductions, tax base, computed tax, and payable tax. The scope and output components are precise enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like gift_tax or capital_gains_income.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: '상속세 신고·계산 시' (at the time of inheritance tax filing/calculation). It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the domain is clear enough that an agent can select it correctly.

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