Co-inherited home owner

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the actual decision algorithm and its tie-breaking order (including the deletion of clause 2 in 2008), which is genuine behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotation block.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the subsequent lines build the rule structure logically. The English and Korean openings partially restate each other, and the cross-tax caveat is buried in a warning symbol at the end, but there is little outright filler for a domain this dense.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what the tool returns — e.g. whether it emits the designated heir, an include/exclude flag, or a tie-break reason — and it does not. The legal logic is thorough, but the caller cannot predict the response shape for a judgment 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 0% and the single parameter is an opaque array of additionalProperties objects, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: it enumerates the item keys (상속인, 지분율 with 0~1 range, 해당주택_거주 bool, 나이 int) and their types. It omits whether shares must sum to 1 or how ties on age are resolved numerically, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Attribute a co-inherited home to one heir') tied to a precise legal basis (Income Tax Decree art. 155(3)), and the Korean line confirms the same scope. It does not explicitly name the adjacent sibling judge_inherited_house_priority, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the statutory citation is a strong differentiator.

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 the applicable rule hierarchy (default exclusion → largest inheritor's share → same-house resident → eldest) and the ⚠️ note that conclusions differ by tax type, with 취득세 and 종부세 following other statutes. This effectively tells the agent this tool is for the income-tax question, but it never names the alternative tools (e.g. calc_acquisition_tax, calc_jongbu_tax) or states an explicit 'do not use' condition.

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