kinship_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it explains this is a query/computation returning relationship degree, reference date, kinship scope, national-tax-law kin status, and inheritance/gift kin (including in-law) status. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or any limits, but for a pure computation tool the disclosed output structure is solid behavioral context.

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?

It is well-structured with 언제/입력/결과 labels and the purpose is front-loaded. However, the closing sentence repeats the opening sentence almost verbatim, and the input list duplicates the schema, so there is some redundancy.

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 steps in to enumerate the return contents (relationship, reference date, kinship scope, 국기법/상증법 kin status), and there is no output schema to make that redundant. For a four-parameter query tool it covers purpose, inputs, and outputs adequately.

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 the baseline is 3. The description restates the family format [[a,b,"부모자녀"|"배우자"]] and its relation to related_judge, matching what the schema already documents, adding little new semantics beyond the structured fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource: computing the kinship relationship (blood/in-law degree, spouse) between two named individuals and whether they fall within the kinship scope on a reference date. It also names the sibling related_judge as sharing the same input format, letting an agent place it among the tax-relation tools without opening the schema.

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' clause gives explicit triggering conditions: when checking if two people are kin, or whether they fall under the Framework Act on National Taxes / Inheritance and Gift Tax Act kinship scope. It gives clear context but no when-not guidance or explicit alternatives beyond the format reference to related_judge.

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