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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool auto-recognizes passport information and verifies authenticity, and it discloses the legal-consent requirement and per-call point cost. It does not explain the output/return behavior, failure cases, or what exactly 'verified' means, so it provides only moderate behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 the core purpose and includes useful legal and cost information. However, the English and Korean sentences duplicate the same core message, creating redundancy. It is not overly long, but the duplication prevents a higher score.

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 read-only single-parameter tool, the description covers the essential input requirement, legal authorization, and cost. However, with no output schema present, it does not describe what the agent should expect in response, how to interpret the verification result, or why this tool differs from the many sibling identity/OCR tools.

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% and the schema already fully describes the single parameter: a downloadable HTTPS URL with allowed types (image/jpeg, image/png, application/pdf) and a 50MB limit. The description adds 'one file, no text input,' but this does not materially extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Verify the authenticity of a Korean passport from an image or PDF file.' The title reinforces the scope with '[Image/PDF] 여권 진위 확인'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling variants like identi_card_image1/2/4/5 or identity_document_passport, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 usage conditions: supply one file without text input ('텍스트 입력 없이 파일 하나만 전달하면 됩니다') and only use when a legal basis such as consent exists. This is helpful context, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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