withholding_tax

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

Annotations already declare a pure read-only, idempotent, non-destructive calculation, so the bar is low. The description still adds real value: it discloses what comes back (withholding amount plus applied rate and statutory basis, 소득세법 제129조) and the important caveat that local income tax is an additional 10% not included. It does not discuss rate tables or rounding, hence not a 5.

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 언제/입력/결과 labeling front-loads purpose, inputs and outputs and is easy to scan. Slight redundancy in repeating the full income-type list and a trailing English restatement of the first sentence keeps it from 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the computed amount, applied rate and legal basis. Combined with the local-tax caveat and the sibling routing note, everything an agent needs to call this three-parameter calculator correctly is present.

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 all three parameters (kind, amount, year) are already documented in the schema. The '입력' line restates the kind enumeration and the year range (2016~2026) without adding syntax, defaults, or magnitude guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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: computes the income-tax portion of Korean withholding tax on domestic interest, dividends, business and other income. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling nonresident_withholding for non-residents and foreign corporations, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

The '언제' block gives the triggering situation (paying interest/dividends/business/other income requiring withholding) and the '결과' block names the exclusion case with a concrete alternative ('비거주자·외국법인은 nonresident_withholding 사용'). When-to-use, when-not-to-use and the routing alternative are all present.

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