liquidation_income

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing what is computed and returned (잔여재산가액, 자기자본총액, 결손금 상계) and the statutory basis. Missing only minor traits like rounding/unit handling nuances.

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?

Structured as purpose / 언제 / 입력 / 결과, which front-loads the decision-relevant facts. The input list partially restates the schema and is dense, but it is labeled and scannable rather than padded.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned components (청산소득금액, 계산 내역, 판단, 근거). For an 8-parameter statutory calculator, an agent has everything needed to invoke it and interpret the result.

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 adds genuine meaning: it clarifies that surplus is 자본잉여금+이익잉여금 and that yubo accepts negative values (△유보), where the schema only says '금액(원)'. The one-to-one mapping of Korean statutory terms to English parameter names also lowers mis-invocation risk.

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 (계산한다) and resource (청산소득금액) and anchors it to Corporate Tax Act Art. 79. No sibling tool in the list covers liquidation income, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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?

"언제: 법인이 해산·청산할 때" gives an explicit trigger condition tied to a lifecycle event. It does not name exclusion cases or an alternative tool, but the domain is narrow enough that no plausible confusion exists.

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