ocr_identi3Extract key fields from a passport image via OCR. 여권 사진에서 이름, 여권번호, 발급일자, 만료일자, 생년월일 등 주요 정보를 추출해 구조화된 결과와 원문 텍스트(raw_text)를 반환합니다. 정보주체의 동의 등 적법한 처리 근거를 확보한 경우에만 사용하십시오. [호출당 12포인트]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image_url | Yes | 다운로드 가능한 https URL (허용 형식: image/png, image/jpeg) (최대 50MB) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns structured results plus raw_text, and discloses a per-call cost of 12 points. This goes beyond the annotations by describing the output and usage cost, without contradicting the read-only nature. It does not mention error cases or rate limits, but the added context is valuable.
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 two sentences with the core action front-loaded in English and a Korean translation adding detail. It is concise and each sentence serves a purpose, though the bilingual repetition is slightly redundant. Overall it is efficient and well-structured.
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 explains what is returned (structured result and raw_text) and adds important usage constraints (legal basis) and cost. It omits handling of invalid inputs or error responses, but for the tool's simplicity, the provided information is reasonably complete.
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 fully describes the image_url parameter, including allowed formats and size limit. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given that the schema carries the full parameter documentation.
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 tool's purpose: extracting key fields (name, passport number, issue/expiry dates, date of birth) from a passport image via OCR. It lists the specific fields and mentions the output format. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like ocr_identi1 or ocr_identi2 beyond the passport scope, so the purpose is clear but not fully distinguishing.
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 includes a legal-basis condition (only use with consent) and a cost note (12 points per call), but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling OCR tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or scenario-based selection, leaving the agent to infer that this tool is specifically for passports from the title and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: the generic `ocr` handles any image, while `ocr_identi1` through `ocr_identi5` are each tied to a specific document type (resident card, driver license, passport, certified copy, alien card). There is no ambiguity about which tool to use for a given input.
All tools follow a consistent `ocr` prefix with snake_case, and the specific ones use `ocr_identi` + numeric suffix. While the pattern is predictable, the numeric suffixes are not descriptive of the document type, which reduces self-documentation slightly.
Six tools is well-scoped for an OCR server. The generic tool handles broad use cases, and the five specific tools cover common identity documents without redundancy or bloat.
The server provides both a general OCR tool and structured extraction for the most common Korean ID documents. There are no obvious dead ends; the domain is fully covered for typical OCR and identity-document needs.