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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so this is a non-destructive lookup. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a text-based verification requiring a 16-digit document confirmation number split into four 4-digit parts, a issuance type, and an explicit legal-consent warning. It also discloses the per-call cost ([호출당 40포인트]), which is useful operational transparency.

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 main purpose in the first sentence, followed by key input rules, legal notice, and pricing. The Korean and English lines partially duplicate each other, but the repetition reinforces the core message without excessive bloat.

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 no output schema, the description provides what an agent needs: required fields, optional fields, format constraints (4-digit segments), issuance type meaning, a legal-use warning, and cost. The only minor omission is the exact response shape, but read-only verification tools without output schemas are often judged by success/failure status and this is acceptable.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds the composite meaning that doc_num1~doc_num4 together form the 16-digit document confirmation number, and clarifies that type refers to issuance channel (정부24 vs 기타). This is helpful but not extensive; baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('Verify the authenticity') and the resource ('Korean resident registration certificate' / 주민등록등본), and the title also specifies the document type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like identi_card1-5 or identity_document_* by focusing on text-based verification of the 주민등록등본.

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 explains required inputs (doc_num1~4, type) and notes name is optional, plus a legal-consent condition for use. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling alternatives (e.g., identi_card_image1 for image-based verification), but the text-input scope and the legal proviso give reasonable usage context.

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