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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and not open-world, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns structured fields plus raw_text, mentions the per-call point cost, and warns about legal compliance. 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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The English and Korean sentences partly duplicate each other, but the additional legal and cost information is valuable and does not create meaningful 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?

With one parameter, a complete schema, and readOnly annotations, the description covers the input, extracted fields, output format, legal condition, and cost. It lacks explicit error/edge-case behavior and sibling differentiation, but it is sufficient for a simple OCR tool.

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 only parameter, image_url, is fully documented in the schema with format and size constraints, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds little beyond restating that the image is a resident registration card photo, which is already implied by the tool's purpose.

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 names a specific action and resource: extracting key fields from a Korean resident registration card image via OCR, and it lists the fields extracted. It is clear, but it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like ocr_identi2–5 or identity_document_id_card.

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 gives a clear legal precondition: use only when a lawful basis such as data subject consent has been secured. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over the many alternative OCR/ID document tools, leaving variant selection to inference.

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