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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it actually sends money, returns a transaction code, requires one of two bank identifiers, and costs 60 points per call. It could mention irreversibility or refund status, but the annotations already signal real-world side effects via openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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 main action is front-loaded and the text is fairly short, but the English and Korean sentences largely duplicate the same information. The bilingual format is helpful for human users, yet not every sentence adds new semantic value for an agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by identifying the return value: the 4-character verification code displayed in the transfer memo. It covers purpose, input requirements, and cost. It omits error scenarios, transfer timing, and what happens to the 1 KRW, but for a simple 3-parameter tool it is largely sufficient.

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 schema already covers all three parameters, but the description adds a critical validation rule not present in the schema: one of bank_code or bank_name must be supplied. This clarifies the optional-looking schema fields and adds operational 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 states a specific operation: send a 1 KRW verification deposit to a Korean bank account and return the 4-character verification code from the transaction memo. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like account_realname or bank_code.

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 explicitly identifies the use case (account ownership verification / 1원 인증) and states that bank_code or bank_name must be provided. It does not name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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