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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: it returns structured results plus raw_text, extracts specific fields, and notes the cost per call. It does not mention failure modes or edge cases, but for a read-only OCR tool the added context is meaningful.

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/Korean duplication creates minor redundancy, but the legal-consent caveat and point cost are each valuable enough to justify their inclusion.

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, the description adequately covers expected outputs (structured result and raw_text) and examples of extracted fields. It could be more complete by distinguishing among the many sibling OCR tools, but nothing essential to invoking this tool correctly is missing.

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% for the single image_url parameter, including allowed formats and max size, so the schema already fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, matching the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('Korean driver license image via OCR'), and lists example fields (name, license number, birthdate). It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like ocr_identi1/3/4/5 or identity_document_driver_license, so it stops short of a 5.

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 usage condition: use only when a legitimate processing basis such as data subject consent is secured. This acts as a when-not restriction and adds compliance context, though it does not explicitly compare against alternative OCR or identity-document tools.

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