pension_income

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful context by enumerating the returned components (총연금액·분리과세연금소득·연금소득공제·연금소득금액·안내·근거), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about error behavior or validity constraints beyond what the schema already encodes.

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?

The purpose and timing are correctly front-loaded, and the 입력/결과 block structure is scannable. However, the seven-line input enumeration largely duplicates a schema that is already 100% described, spending roughly half the budget on redundant content.

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 seven-parameter calculation tool with no output schema, the definition does the important things: it names the result components, identifies the year range context via the schema, and flags the interaction between public_pension and public_pension_detail. Only the absence of sibling routing guidance keeps it from a 5.

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 in structured data. The '입력:' mapping restates the seven fields in Korean with the same meaning as the schema descriptions, adding labeling convenience but no new semantics. 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('연금소득금액 계산') and scopes it to determining comprehensive vs. separate taxation classification and the pension income amount. It is clear what the tool produces, though it never names the adjacent siblings (pension_account_withdrawal, retirement_income_tax) that could plausibly be confused with it.

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?

An explicit '언제:' clause states the situation that selects this tool (classifying pension income for aggregate vs. separate taxation and computing the amount). There is no when-not guidance and no named alternative, so the agent must infer routing against similar pension/retirement tools on its own.

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