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

The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing a three-way outcome concept (pass / fail / cannot-be-confirmed) that annotations cannot convey. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=false on a tool whose description reads as pure analysis, and the description never explains what write or persistence that implies. It also does not say whether verification results are stored on the document.

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 core sentences are tightly front-loaded and free of padding, but the trailing '무료. [무료]' duplicates the same pricing note twice in a four-clause description, which is wasted space in a tool definition this short. Roughly a quarter of the text is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what a verification call returns, and it only gestures at this via '확인 불가를 구분합니다'. It does not describe the result categories, per-item findings, or whether failures block downstream workflow steps. Adequate to select the tool, insufficient to predict its output shape.

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 100% and both parameters (document_id, version) carry their own descriptions, so the schema already does this work. The description adds no meaning about the version parameter or about how version staleness affects verification. Baseline 3 applies.

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 description pairs a clear verb (대조합니다 — cross-check/verify) with a specific resource (저장된 문서 — a stored document) and names the comparison targets: input evidence, required fields, and calculation rules. It also states a distinctive capability (flagging 'unverifiable' items). It does not name or differentiate itself from the closest siblings (document_review, document_assist, document_get), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for compliance-style checking of a document that already exists. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over document_review or document_assist, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens on failure or whether a workflow step is required first.

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