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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds useful behavioral context by noting the automatic recognition process, the card_sn conditional requirement, and the legal consent mandate. However, it does not describe what happens on failure, return format, or any privacy handling beyond the consent note, which is a minor gap given the read-only hint.

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 primary purpose, then adds the parameter note, legal caution, and cost per call. Each sentence provides distinct value, though the Korean translation partially duplicates the English content. No fluff or redundancy beyond that.

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 is simple (2 params, no output schema). The description covers input requirements and a legal prerequisite, but it does not state what the verification returns (e.g., boolean, result object) or any error conditions. Given the absence of an output schema, a note on the return value would improve completeness, but the core call parameters are adequately covered.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with full coverage (100%): image_url includes allowed types and size limit, and card_sn includes length and the post-2011 requirement. The description essentially restates the card_sn condition, adding no new parameter-level semantics. Schema does the heavy lifting, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource 'Korean alien registration card' from an image or PDF, making the core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like identi_card_image1-4 or identity_document_residence_card, but the title and description make the verification intent clear, distinguishing it from pure OCR tools like ocr_identi*.

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 provides a legal usage condition (only with consent or other lawful basis) and a condition for card_sn (required for cards issued after 2011-01-01), but it does not specify when to choose this tool over the many similar identi_card_image* or identity_document_residence_card siblings. No explicit 'use X instead of Y' guidance is given, leaving tool selection partially ambiguous.

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