fin_calc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: deterministic computation, output bundled with the calculation process and legal citations, and a scope boundary (ordinary employee severance unsupported). It says nothing about error behavior for out-of-range or unsupported inputs.

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?

Three dense sentences, with the most actionable instruction (do not hand-calculate statutory limits) front-loaded in the bracket. It is appropriately sized for a 22-parameter tool; the supported-types list is a compact enumeration rather than filler.

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 complex multi-mode calculator with no output schema, the description covers supported calc types, scope exclusions, and what the response contains (process plus cited articles), while the oneOf schema handles conditional parameter requirements. An agent can call it correctly without guessing at the tool's boundaries.

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% and the 22-parameter schema (including oneOf branches) already documents every field in detail. The description only clarifies the meaning/scope of each calc_type value, which the enum and per-parameter bracketed tags already convey, so it adds marginal value over structured data.

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 and resource ('세법에 명문화된 산식을 결정형 코드로 계산한다') and enumerates all five supported calculation types, matching the calc_type enum exactly. It clearly reads as the calculator in a sibling set of search/verification tools, but it never names a sibling to differentiate against, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives an explicit use directive in the bracket ('법정 한도·세액은 직접 계산하지 말고 이 도구를 사용') and one concrete exclusion ('일반 근로자 퇴직금은 미지원'). It does not point to any alternative sibling (e.g., fin_verify for checking a result or fin_article for the source text), so no alternatives are covered.

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