가산세 추정 (감면 포함)

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

While the annotations cover safety (ReadOnly), the description adds crucial behavioral context by identifying the core logic—calculating penalties based on specific filing types and applying reduction ratios according to National Tax Law Article 48. This explains the 'how' and 'why' of the calculation.

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 definition uses two concise sentences, each serving a critical function: the first defines the calculation and legal basis, and the second defines the strategic use case.

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 100% schema coverage and the ReadOnly nature of the tool, the description provides all necessary contextual and logical information an agent needs to invoke the tool accurately for its designed purpose.

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?

Since the schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description significantly elevates this by providing domain expertise (e.g., defining '무신고' and '과소신고' contextually within the workflow) which helps the agent select the correct `kind` enum value.

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 purpose is perfectly clear: it calculates specific types of taxes (non-filing, under-reporting, late payment) and applies specific statutory rules (Article 48 reduction rates). It clearly differentiates itself from other research tools like estimate_tax.

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 usage guideline is explicit: 'Use for comparing burdens by amended filing timing' (수정신고 시점별 부담 비교에 사용하세요). This guides the agent on the specific analytical use case for this tool.

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