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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description is consistent with them. It adds useful context about the legal basis requirement and per-call cost, but it does not describe the verification result structure or any edge-case 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 description is front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, but the Korean sentence largely repeats the English opening. The legal notice and cost information are useful, though the cost note is tangential to tool invocation.

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?

Input requirements are well covered: all fields, formats, and legal preconditions are stated. However, there is no output schema and no description of what the verification result looks like, which is a meaningful gap because an agent needs to interpret the outcome to decide its next action.

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 each parameter with a short label. The description adds value by reinforcing that all five parameters are mandatory and clarifying the numeric date format with an example, which is not fully explicit in the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Verify' and the specific resource 'Korean passport', and it distinguishes the method with 'using text input'. This sets it apart from image-based sibling tools, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.

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 explicitly lists all five required fields, states the date format requirement ('숫자만, 예: 20230101'), and gives a legal precondition ('적법한 처리 근거를 확보한 경우에만'). It gives clear usage conditions but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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