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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about mandatory fields, date format restrictions, legal consent requirements, and a per-call cost. It does not describe output behavior, but the read-only nature is already annotated and the description provides sufficient safety and processing context.

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 reasonably concise, with bilingual text that reiterates the same core message, a clear example, and a cost note. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and each sentence serves a purpose, though the bilingual duplication could be trimmed.

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 a simple input schema and no output schema, so the description should ideally explain the return value/confirmation format. It does not, and it also omits details about what happens on failure or how the authenticity result is presented. The legal and cost context is valuable, but the lack of output information leaves a gap for agent use.

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?

All five parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions and format examples. The description recaps the requirement that all fields must be entered and dates are numeric, but this is redundant with the schema's required array and property descriptions. Thus parameter semantics are adequately covered by the schema, and the description adds minimal new meaning.

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 tool verifies the authenticity of a Korean passport using text input, distinguishing it from image-based or other document verification tools. The title and description align, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It specifies that all five fields must be provided and gives a clear legal prerequisite (consent/legitimate basis). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other document types or mention when not to use it, so it is clear but lacks exclusions.

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