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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction exists. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a verification operation, requires legitimate processing grounds, and consumes 40 points per call. These details go beyond what annotations and schema provide, even though output format and error behavior are not described.

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 and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by parameter guidance, legal conditions, and cost. It contains some redundancy with the schema, but each sentence carries practical information for invocation and compliance. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 a verification tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers input requirements, conditional fields, legal prerequisites, and cost. It does not describe the exact result format, but the purpose is straightforward enough that an agent can reasonably infer a boolean or verification result. The main gap is not explaining differences among identi_card1-5 siblings explicitly.

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%, with each parameter already described in terms of format and length. The description repeats these constraints rather than adding new semantic meaning beyond the schema. It does usefully summarize requiredness and the card_sn condition, but does not materially expand parameter understanding.

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'), a specific resource ('Korean alien registration card'), and a specific input mode ('using text input'), which distinguishes it from image-based siblings like identi_card_image1-5 and OCR variants. The title's [Text] marker reinforces the text-based scope.

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 clearly specifies required fields, format constraints, and the conditional requirement for card_sn on cards issued after 2011-01-01. It also provides a legal-usage condition (consent or lawful basis). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool fits.

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