Priority inherited home

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower. Beyond that, the description discloses the full deterministic ranking algorithm including the final tie-break by inheritor choice, and adds a genuine side-effect note that non-priority homes still count toward house count — real behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-sentence English summary before the detailed Korean rules, and every element (ranking rules, input shape, downstream handoff) earns its place. Slight redundancy between the English and Korean statements of the same concept keeps it from a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains what the result feeds into (is_first_priority_inherited) and covers the ranking logic and input format an agent needs. A single-param pure-function tool is essentially fully specified; only per-field typing/units for the input elements remain implicit.

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 0% and the single 'houses' parameter is an untyped object array, so the description must compensate — and it does, enumerating the element keys (라벨, 피상속인_소유기간_년, 피상속인_거주기간_년, 상속개시당시_거주: bool, 기준시가: 원). It meaningfully fills the gap, though it doesn't state units beyond 원 or required-ness per key.

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 ('pick the single inherited home that gets the special treatment') and the Korean adds the exact legal basis (영 §155② 1~4호). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling judge_155_special by naming it as the downstream consumer, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

It states the triggering condition ('when a decedent held several homes' / '상속주택이 2개 이상이면') and specifies the integration point ('결과를 judge_155_special(kind="상속주택")의 is_first_priority_inherited로 전달한다'). No explicit when-not or alternative-selection guidance, but the multiple-home precondition is a clear context signal.

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