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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: it returns structured fields plus raw_text, and it discloses a per-call point cost. No contradiction exists. It does not cover error behavior or image failures, but the additional 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 compact: an English summary, a Korean sentence that adds fields/output/legal condition/cost, and no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause contributes information.

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 one-parameter OCR tool with annotations, the description is nearly complete: it names inputs, example fields, output types, legal precondition, and cost. With no output schema, the raw_text/structured-result mention helps, though a fuller field list would make it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter image_url is fully described with URL type, allowed MIME types, and size limit. The description adds no new parameter semantics and is not required to, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('extract') and resource ('Korean alien registration card image') and names example fields, clearly identifying the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling OCR/identity tools like ocr_identi1-4 or identity_document_residence_card, 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 states the clear context: use when a Korean ARC image needs key-field extraction via OCR. It also gives a concrete prerequisite (secure legal basis/consent before processing). It does not spell out when-not-to-use or name alternatives, which would have made the guidance stronger.

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