DSR/DTI 계산기 (프리미엄)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: real-time Gumroad license verification (KR_FINANCE_LICENSE_KEY). However, it does not mention side effects, output format, or error behavior. For a calculator, this is acceptable but incomplete.

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 function and inputs, followed by the license requirement. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys inputs, outputs (DSR/DTI ratio and limit), and the license constraint. It doesn't explain how the license key is provided or all edge cases, but it covers the essential information for a 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 schema already documents all six parameters. The description reiterates input categories (income, existing repayments, new loan terms) but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('계산합니다' - calculates) and resource (DSR·DTI ratio and loan limit), with clear scope (based on income, existing loan repayments, new loan terms). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are other financial calculators (insurance, salary, severance, etc.).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when DSR/DTI calculations are needed. It provides context for the inputs and mentions the license requirement, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Since no other sibling handles DSR/DTI, the context is sufficient.

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