nonresident_withholding

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real computation context: 적용세율 = min(국내세율, 조약 제한세율) and 지방소득세 10% separate. This tells the agent how the number is derived, which annotations cannot. It stops short of rate limits or edge-case caveats.

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-loaded with purpose, then cleanly organized into 언제/입력/결과 blocks that an agent can scan quickly. It is somewhat long and the '입력' block duplicates schema content, costing a point.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by describing the return contents (원천징수세액·지방소득세·적용세율·국내세율·근거) and the calculation rule. Together with 100% schema coverage this is nearly complete, though it omits treaty-rate sourcing guidance and any failure/validation behavior.

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, and the description's '입력' list largely restates the schema's field mappings. It adds only marginal framing (e.g. bond_interest/related_party being meaningful only for interest income), which the schema also notes, so baseline 3 is right.

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+resource with precise scope ('비거주자·외국법인 국내원천소득 원천징수') and cites the governing law (소득세법 제156조 / 법인세법 제98조). The non-resident/foreign-corporation scope cleanly separates it from generic siblings like withholding_tax, wage_income_tax, and daily_worker_withholding without needing to name them.

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' section gives an explicit trigger condition: when paying interest, dividends, royalties, personal services or other income to a non-resident/foreign corporation. It does not state when NOT to use it or name the alternative tool for domestic withholding, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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