kr_tax_rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the record is a curated explanation sourced from kr_tax_calendar, but says nothing about what happens when the id is missing or unknown, despite the conflict-adjacent "Needs id" claim.

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-loaded with the core verb and resource, then the return contents, then usage guidance. The Korean-language sentence largely duplicates the English meaning and adds length without new information for most agents, but overall it is tight and waste-free.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description explains the resource, the id source, the shape of the returned explanation, and when to reach for it. Only the missing-id behavior and the optional/required ambiguity leave a small gap.

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%, and the schema itself documents the id parameter including the "Omit to list all rule ids" behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description's "from kr_tax_calendar" helpfully tells the agent where the id originates, but "Needs id" mildly conflicts with the schema stating the parameter is optional.

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 (Explain) plus resource (one recurring Korean tax/payroll obligation) and enumerates the returned content: what it is, who files, when, and the base dates. It also names the sibling source (kr_tax_calendar), so the agent can distinguish it from kr_tax_calendar itself 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?

"Use when the agent needs to tell the owner what a deadline means" gives a clear, concrete usage context and implicitly positions kr_tax_calendar as the listing counterpart. There is no explicit when-not or failure-mode guidance, so it stops short of full routing instructions.

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