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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it requires all four fields, restricts the date format, mandates a lawful basis for use, and discloses the per-call cost of 40 points. This gives the agent a genuine sense of the operational constraints and authorization requirements.

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 description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information: input mode, required fields, date constraint, legal condition, and cost. It is slightly bilingual/repetitive but still efficient for the range of details it conveys.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so a description of expected return values would be valuable. The description covers inputs, legal prerequisites, and cost, but never explains how the verification result is returned (e.g., simple pass/fail, reason codes, possible error conditions). This is a notable gap even though annotations and input documentation are solid.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters and their formats. The description reinforces that all four items are required and gives a date example, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. This aligns with the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Verify') and a specific resource ('authenticity of a Korean resident registration card'), and the title's '[Text]' tag clearly distinguishes it from image-based sibling tools like identi_card_image1. The bilingual text backs this up with 'using text input'. An agent can confidently understand what this tool does at a glance.

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 gives clear context: use when you have text-based card fields, all four items must be provided, and date must be numeric. It also adds a legal prerequisite ('only use when legitimate processing grounds such as consent are secured'). It does not explicitly name alternatives for image or OCR cases, but the '[Text]' distinction combined with the strong input conditions provides adequate routing guidance.

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