Rental income tax status

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: total income over 20M KRW is honestly returned as '판단불가' because 추계경비 is an NTS-notice area. It also discloses that answers hinge on tax_year due to a 2026-01-01 statutory effective date and an annually revised deposit interest-rate constant.

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 topic is front-loaded, but the body is a dense bilingual block mixing an English fragment with untranslated Korean legal shorthand, which hurts parseability. Every clause carries domain content, but the structure could be far more scannable for an agent.

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 12-parameter, no-output-schema, high-complexity judgment tool, the description covers the decision flow and nested-object shapes well but leaves most scalar inputs unexplained and only partially sketches the return shape (beyond the '판단불가' case). It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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% for 12 parameters, so the description must compensate and it partly does: it documents the element keys for own_homes/spouse_homes (라벨, 기준시가, 전용면적, 공동소유, 지분율, 최대지분자, 연임대수입, 전대, 국외) and deposits (라벨, 보증금, 일수, 기준시가, 전용면적), and justifies tax_year being required. It does not explain the eight scalar params (tax_reduction, financial_income, business_registered, monthly_rent_revenue, deposit_interest_rate, registered_rent_revenue, other_comprehensive_income, revenue_before_registration).

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 line states a specific verb+resource ('Residential rental income tax: taxable, home count, deemed rent, separate vs global taxation') and the Korean tree label (주택임대 종합소득세 판정) makes clear this is a judgment tool. It is distinguishable from the sibling calc_rental_income_tax by framing itself as a 판정/decision-tree rather than a calculation, though it never explicitly names that sibling.

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 lays out the internal decision sequence (비과세 → 주택수 → 총수입금액 → 2천만원 분기 → 분리과세), which implies when each branch applies. However it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like calc_rental_income_tax or judge_small_house_rental_reduction, leaving routing to inference.

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