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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the per-call cost, the legal-basis requirement, and importantly the scope limits (it does not verify the serial number itself or the physical license's tampering). Those negative-capability and cost statements are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry. It still omits how the result is returned or any throttling behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the content is delivered twice, once in English and once in Korean, with the ghost_num caveat repeated almost verbatim. That bilingual duplication costs space without adding information, though each individual sentence is otherwise clean.

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 an 11-parameter, 8-required verification tool with no output schema, the description covers required vs optional inputs, the ignored field, the cost, the legal precondition, and the limits of what is verified. The one real gap is the absence of any statement about the response shape (pass/fail, matched fields), since no output schema exists to cover it.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description largely restates it: required birth_y/m/d, name, licen_no0-3, and optional ghost_num/rrn1/rrn2. It adds slight value by stressing that ghost_num accepts arbitrary strings and is ignored in the decision, but that is also in the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: checking a Korean driver's license number and personal details, and explicitly disclaims what it does not do (serial-number validation, physical forgery detection). That said, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling identity_document_driver_license or from identi_card1/3/4/5, so an agent cannot tell which of the near-identical tools to pick from the text alone.

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?

Provides a real precondition (only use with a lawful basis such as the data subject's consent) and a cost signal (40 points per call), which implies when it is appropriate to invoke. However, it gives no explicit routing guidance versus the driver-license-adjacent siblings, so the agent must infer the choice from tool names.

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