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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context: automatic recognition of the document confirmation number, cost of 60 points per call, and a legal/consent prerequisite. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 core purpose. The bilingual redundancy is acceptable for a Korean-focused tool, and the additional operational details (file-only input, consent requirement, cost) each add practical value.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the input, expected behavior, legal condition, and cost. It does not describe the exact response format, but '진위 여부를 확인합니다' sufficiently signals the result is an authenticity verdict. Explicit sibling differentiation is the main missing piece.

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 image_url with 100% coverage, including HTTPS requirement, accepted MIME types, and max size. The description adds that only a file is needed and that images/PDFs are acceptable, but it does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Verify the authenticity of a Korean resident registration certificate from an image or PDF file.' This clearly distinguishes it from OCR tools and other identity document tools, even though the image4 suffix carries no semantic meaning by itself.

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 gives clear usage context: upload only a file, no text input required, and use only when a lawful basis such as consent exists. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool over identi_card_image1/2/3/5 or ocr_identi variants, but the input conditions are clear.

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