양도소득세 사건 입력 검증

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds specifics on what gets validated (required fields, dates, shares, rules, scenarios) and the instruction not to infer missing values, providing useful context beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. First sentence states purpose and scope, second sentence gives critical usage instruction.

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?

Description covers what it validates and usage order, but does not indicate what the output is (validation errors/success, or return structure). Given no output schema, this gap reduces completeness for a validation 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% but parameter description is minimal ('data to validate; partial fields okay'). Tool description adds value by detailing what aspects are validated, enhancing meaning for the single parameter.

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 it validates required fields, dates, ownership shares, rule applicability, and supported scenarios before calculating Korean real-estate capital gains tax. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'call this tool first'.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this tool first and do not infer missing values,' providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to calculate_capital_gains_tax.

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