timing_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context: it is read-only, backed by data/timing_rules.json, and makes no external calls. It also discloses the response shape and the tax-present vs tax-absent branching, which the annotations cannot convey. Minor internal tension: it advertises Solar translation when lang='en' while also stating no external calls.

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?

Labeled blocks (언제 / 반환) front-load the use case and the return contract, so an agent can scan it quickly. The only waste is the full Korean-English duplication of every line, which roughly doubles length without adding information.

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 steps in to describe the return object (규칙 array with 세목/구분/항목/시기/예외/근거, plus 시행본 and 주의), which is what an agent needs to consume results. Combined with read-only and data-source disclosure, only the lang/Solar translation path is left slightly underspecified.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by explaining the branch semantics: passing tax yields tax-keyed rules, omitting it returns common rules plus per-tax counts. It does not clarify kind or keyword behavior beyond the schema's own text.

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?

Names the resource precisely (timing rules table) and enumerates the four rule families it covers: tax liability establishment, P/L business-year attribution, income receipt timing, and VAT supply timing, all with statutory basis. That is enough to separate it from law_article or basic_rules, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 states the triggering condition and backs it with three concrete scenarios (December delivery/January payment, advance-issued tax invoice, deemed bonus attribution), which is unusually actionable. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not case, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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