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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context: it returns both structured fields and raw_text, requires a legal basis due to sensitive personal data, and notes a per-call point cost. No contradiction with 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 main purpose. The English and Korean sentences are somewhat redundant, but the Korean sentence adds field names and raw_text detail, and the legal/cost notes earn their place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by naming the expected outputs: structured fields such as name, passport number, issue/expiry dates, birth date, plus raw_text. It could be more precise about exact output keys or failure behavior, but it is adequate for a one-parameter 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?

Schema coverage for the single parameter image_url is 100%, with the schema already specifying HTTPS, allowed MIME types, and the 50MB limit. The description adds nothing beyond referring to a passport image, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: extract key fields from a passport image via OCR, and lists examples of extracted fields. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely named siblings like identity_document_passport or ocr_identi1/2/4/5, 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 an important condition for use: only when a legal processing basis like consent has been secured. However, it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling passport/OCR tools, leaving tool selection largely implied.

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