tunnelling_gift

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses scope limits that matter for correctness: ⑩항 excluded sales must be entered directly, and ⑭·⑮ are not reflected. It does not discuss permissions, but for a pure calculation tool this is a genuinely informative disclosure.

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 statutory basis and scope caveat before the input/output mapping, which is good structure. However, the closing sentence repeats '일감몰아주기 증여의제이익(상증법 제45조의3)' verbatim from the opening, and the input mapping duplicates the schema.

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 nested objects and no output schema, the description states the return values (증여의제이익, 근거 법조항) and the calculation scope limits. Requirements are clear; only edge-case behavior for the nested people/family/stakes structures is left to the schema.

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 schema already documents every parameter (including Korean labels and units). The description's Korean→param mapping (e.g., 수혜자 → beneficiary, excluded_sales) largely restates the schema, adding little beyond the required/optional status of excluded_sales.

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: computing 일감몰아주기 증여의제이익 under 상증법 제45조의3, and explicitly names the sibling it differs from (tunnelling_gift_nts for the full NTS formula). An agent can distinguish it from the many other tax-calculation siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Has an explicit '언제' section: use this for a simple deemed-gift calculation, with the alternative (tunnelling_gift_nts) named along with the condition that selects it (full 국세청 신고안내 formula). Nothing is left to inference.

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