Holding tax one-home status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuine behavior beyond them by noting the downstream consequence (12억 deduction and tax-credit entry), that the tax base aggregation is retained, and that a 9/16~30 application flag is included. It does not describe the shape of the verdict returned.

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 English purpose sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the Korean block is dense with terse legal shorthand (6억(3억)/지방저가 4억, §8④·영 §4의2) that reads as notes rather than agent-facing guidance. Duplicated bilingual content costs more space than it earns.

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 complex, no-output-schema judgment tool with one required parameter entirely undocumented in the schema, the description covers legal basis and consequences but leaves the caller guessing about the other_homes payload and the verdict format. Adequate but with a clear gap on the core input.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain base_date well (과세기준일, YYYY-MM-DD, typically June 1) and supplies its default meaning, but other_homes — the sole required parameter — is not described at all, leaving its expected object structure and what counts as a 'home' undefined.

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 opening states a specific verb and resource: judging whether an owner is deemed a one-household-one-home holder, and enumerates the four types (attached land, temporary, inherited, cheap provincial home). This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like judge_temporary_two_homes or judge_same_household, though it never explicitly names which sibling covers the overlapping sub-cases.

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 implies usage through legal context (statutory citations and the note that a positive finding is the entry point to the 12억 deduction and tax credit), but it does not state when to call this versus judge_temporary_two_homes, judge_same_household, or judge_inherited_house_priority. Guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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