thin_capitalization

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing what the computation returns (excess borrowings, disallowed interest, disposition, optional withholding recalculation) and its legal basis, plus the industry-multiple caveat.

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?

Organized into 언제/입력/결과 blocks that front-load the rule and map inputs, which suits a complex multi-parameter tax computation. There is mild redundancy (recipient_residence_country is explained twice), keeping it short of a 5.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the '결과' section explicitly describes the produced values and the optional withholding recalculation, and the legal basis is supplied. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret the tool is missing.

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%, setting a baseline of 3, but the schema's descriptions for equity/borrowings/total_interest are terse ('금액(원)'). The description clarifies the distinct roles of each amount (controlling-shareholder equity, borrowings, total interest paid), adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific computation (과소자본 손금불산입) grounded in a cited statute (국제조세조정에 관한 법률 제22조) and states the exact trigger (foreign controlling-shareholder debt exceeding the equity multiple). This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like deemed_interest or nonbusiness_interest_disallowance even without naming 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 triggering condition (borrowings from overseas controlling shareholder exceeding the baseline multiple, default 2x), which is clear usage context. It does not name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this one, so it falls short of a 5.

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