Funding plan requirement

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: it cites the legal basis (거래신고령 별표 1), the concrete triggering conditions, and notes that output includes guidance on current form (별지 1호의3) items. It still does not describe the shape of the judgment result itself.

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 in one clean English sentence, and the supplementary rule detail carries real information rather than filler. The second paragraph is dense with slashes and nested parentheses, which slightly hurts readability but introduces no waste.

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 5-parameter judgment tool with no output schema, the description covers the intent and the statutory criteria but leaves the parameter semantics and the exact return shape (boolean? structured guidance?) to inference. It is adequate to understand the tool, not fully sufficient to invoke it confidently.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. The criteria text indirectly maps onto every parameter (corporation → is_corporation, 6억↑ → actual_price, 규제지역 → in_adjusted_area, 투기과열지구 → in_speculation_zone, 허가구역 → in_permit_zone), but the mapping is only inferable and nothing explains units, defaults, or the boolean flags.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: determining 'whether a home purchase must file a funding plan and supporting documents.' That is clearly distinguishable from the calc_* and other judge_* siblings. It stops short of naming any alternative tool, so it is clear but not explicitly differentiated.

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 Korean parenthetical supplies the triggering criteria (corporation / 600M+ / regulated area / speculation·permit zones), which implicitly frames the tool's scope but is rule substance rather than when-to-use guidance. It never states when to reach for this tool versus another judge_* or calc_* sibling.

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