청약 가점 계산기 (프리미엄)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the license validation requirement and the scoring formula, which is beyond the basic 'calculate' intention. However, it does not mention error behavior, return format, or whether any data is stored, leaving minor gaps. The license disclosure and formula transparency justify a 4.

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 compact and structured: a bracketed prefix for category, a single clear sentence stating the function and formula, and a final sentence for the license requirement. No unnecessary words or repetition, and essential information is front-loaded.

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 calculator with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: inputs, scoring formula, and the license prerequisite. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining how each parameter contributes to the total score (무주택기간 up to 32 points, 부양가족 up to 35, 청약통장 up to 17), giving meaningful context beyond the schema's plain descriptions. Thus a 4 is appropriate.

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 calculates housing subscription scores (청약 가점) using the standard scoring table, and specifies the exact point breakdown (무주택기간 32점, 부양가족 35점, 청약통장 17점, 총 84점). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a premium calculator for this specific domain.

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 for usage: it is a premium tool requiring Gumroad license validation via KR_FINANCE_LICENSE_KEY. It implies it should be used when a housing subscription score is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This earns a 4 rather than 5 due to the absence of explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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