trace_local_tax_application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the tool returns limited information (본문 only up to '그 시점 시행 문구', not the full application-year determination) and defers the actual application-year decision to the 부칙 logic. However, it doesn't describe return format, failure modes, or data-source boundaries. Moderate transparency given the zero-annotation context.

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 concise—three sentences covering purpose, scope boundary, and pairing requirement. Every sentence carries distinct value with no fluff. Slightly loses a point for mixing Korean technical legal terms in a way that's dense but still appropriate for the domain.

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 6 parameters with 83% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does well: it explains the tool's judgment logic, boundary (본문만 제공), and the critical pairing requirement. The undocumented 'oc' parameter and lack of return-format clarity are minor gaps for a tool of moderate complexity. Overall adequate for correct invocation.

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 83% (5 of 6 params documented: jo, year, limit, query, lawName; oc has no description). The description explains the jo param's priority logic (specified jo prioritizes relevant 부칙) and the year param's semantics (the 과세연도 to determine). This adds reasonable meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented 'oc' parameter, which remains opaque.

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 verb ('판정한다' - determines), the resource (부칙/supplementary provisions of 시행일·적용례·경과조치), and the scope (which 과세연도 a provision applies to). It distinctly differentiates from siblings by explaining what it does NOT do (본문 only shows '그 시점 시행 문구', application year comes from 부칙) and names the sibling it pairs with (get_local_tax_article).

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it when determining application timing via supplementary provisions (부칙). It explicitly states the pairing requirement ('get_local_tax_article과 반드시 짝으로 호출할 것') when handling past attribution-year adjustments, which is a clear directive distinguishing it from alternatives. This is a strong explicit guideline.

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