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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's job is to add context. It discloses required input completeness (all five fields), numeric date constraints, the per-call point cost, and the legal compliance requirement, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it repeats the same information in English and Korean, creating slight redundancy, though the added legal and cost details justify the length.

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 description covers input requirements, legal basis, and cost, but does not describe the expected output format or behavior on invalid vs. valid passports. With no output schema, this leaves some operational uncertainty, though the readOnly and openWorld annotations mitigate safety concerns.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already includes a description with format examples (e.g., '숫자만, 예: 20230101'). The description mainly restates the requirement that all five fields must be entered, adding little beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with 'Verify the authenticity of a Korean passport using text input,' clearly stating the tool's specific function and resource. The phrase 'text input' distinguishes it from image-based sibling tools like identi_card_image1, and the title '[Text] 여권 진위 확인' reinforces this 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 specifies a text-input use case, which implies when to use this over image variants, and explicitly warns to use only when legal basis such as consent is secured. However, it does not name alternative tools directly or state exclusions, so some implicit guidance remains.

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