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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: mandatory input fields, date format validation, legal authorization prerequisite, and cost per call. It does not disclose output structure or error handling, but given the annotations, the additional context is well above baseline.

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, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by critical usage constraints and cost in a single follow-up. Every sentence earns its place, and the bilingual text is efficient without unnecessary detail.

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 verification tool with four documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input requirements, format constraints, legal basis, and cost. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., valid/invalid), which would be helpful, but the tool's simple nature and the provided annotations make the description largely complete.

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 describes all four parameters with 100% coverage. The description only restates that all four are required and reinforces the numeric-only rule for date, which duplicates the schema's parameter descriptions. No meaningful new semantics are added, so the baseline score of 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 explicitly states 'Verify the authenticity of a Korean resident registration card (jumin-deungnokjeung) using text input.' This is a specific verb+resource combination and the 'text input' qualifier distinguishes it from image-based sibling tools like identi_card_image1. The Korean title confirms the same purpose.

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 that all four parameters must be entered and that date must be numeric, which guides usage. It also states the legal requirement ('정보주체의 동의 등 적법한 처리 근거를 확보한 경우에만') and discloses the per-call cost. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the 'text input' wording implicitly differentiates from image-based siblings.

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