양도소득세 간이 계산기 (프리미엄)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses approximation behavior, the exemption warning triggered by 보유주택수, and the Gumroad license verification requirement. It does not describe the output format or failure behavior, but the disclosed constraints are valuable.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core calculation purpose, and every sentence earns its place: function, optional behavior, license requirement. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 3-param calculator with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, input relationships, limitations, and operational requirements. It doesn't specify the return value or edge-case handling, but these are largely implied for a calculator tool.

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, but the description adds extra semantic value: it states the default for 보유주택수 (기본값 1) and explains why the user would input it (to generate a 비과세 warning), going beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 (근사 계산합니다) and resource (양도소득세) and clearly scopes it as a simple calculator for real estate transfer gains. It is readily distinguishable from sibling calculators like calc_severance_pay or calc_fx_convert by naming the exact tax type and '간이' mode.

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 provides clear context: this is an approximate, not actual tax advice, and requires a premium license. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when to prefer another calculator, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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