minimum_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 safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a deterministic formula-based calculation with a stated legal basis, but does not disclose behavior beyond the computation itself (no return format detail beyond '최저한세액, 근거'). Adequate against annotations that carry the safety load.

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 the purpose, then uses labeled sections (언제/입력/결과) so the agent can parse it at a glance. Dense but every element earns its place; the trailing English restatement is minor 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?

For a 4-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description compensates by disclosing the return values (최저한세액, 근거) and the input-to-parameter mapping. The SME/grace-year interaction is mentioned, leaving nothing critical missing for a correct call.

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. However, the description maps each parameter to the actual formula (base_before_incentives = pre-incentive tax base, grace_year = years since SME graduation, 0~5), adding semantic role beyond the schema's field labels.

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 gives a specific verb+resource with the actual formula (감면 전 과세표준 × 최저한세율) and cites the statutory basis (조세특례제한법 제132조①), so the agent knows exactly what is computed. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling corporate_tax, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 clearly states the trigger context: checking the minimum tax still owed even after credits/deductions, including SME graduation grace years. It gives clear context but names no alternative tool or when-not condition.

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