연봉 실수령액 계산기 (무료)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly states that the calculation uses a 2026 simplified tax table approximation and is not exact per NTS standards, plus the word '추정' signals estimation. This is strong transparency for a calculator, though it does not detail output formatting or edge cases.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a key limitation (approximation) without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies the output as monthly/yearly net amounts and lists the deduction components. It also warns about accuracy limitations. It does not cover the optional 비과세액 parameter, but that is documented in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for a simple calculator.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it contextualizes how the salary input is used (deductions applied). The schema already explains 연봉 as pre-tax annual salary and 비과세액 as monthly non-taxable income, so the description adds minimal extra value here.

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 clearly states the tool estimates monthly/yearly net salary after deducting 4 major insurances and simplified income/local income tax. The verb '추정합니다' (estimates) and the resource '연봉 실수령액' make the purpose specific and distinct from sibling calculators like calc_4major_insurance 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?

The description provides clear context: use this tool when you have an annual salary input and want an estimated net amount. It does not explicitly address alternatives, but the title and description make the tool's domain obvious relative to siblings, which cover distinct calculation types (insurance, severance, tax, DSR, FX, housing score).

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