4대보험 계산기 (무료)

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries the transparency burden and does disclose the exact rates (4.5%, 3.545% + long-term care, 0.9%) and notes they are approximate 2026 rates. However, it does not explain the return format, rounding behavior, income ceilings, or the long-term care rate percentage, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence containing all essential information—input, rates, scope, and vintage—without any filler. Every clause adds value.

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 simple one-parameter calculator, the description covers the main purpose, input, rates, and approximation basis. However, with no output schema, it should be more explicit about what the tool returns (e.g., total amount vs. itemized breakdown), and it omits the long-term care insurance rate and legal contribution limits.

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%, with the parameter 월급 already described as '세전 월급 (원)' and an exclusive minimum. The description adds that the salary is used to compute the deduction amounts, but it does not materially enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('계산합니다') and clearly identifies the resource as 4대보험, enumerating the exact components and rates. This differentiates it well from sibling calculator tools such as calc_annual_salary_net or calc_severance_pay.

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?

It states that entering a monthly salary triggers the calculation and clarifies that only the employee burden (근로자 부담분) is computed, which provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion rules, but the scope is sufficiently clear for this standalone calculator.

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