bank_card_ocr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a read-like extraction (no mention of side effects), but it does not disclose potential behaviors such as handling of invalid images, privacy considerations, or whether it supports retries. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 long, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second listing use cases. No wasted words, front-loaded, and easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and usage context. It does not describe the return format, but 'extract number and expiry date' implies the output. The lack of failure-mode details is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'image', which already details accepted formats (path, URL, data URL, base64). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain best practices or constraints for the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema carries the load.

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 ('bank card number and expiry date from a bank card front image'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like id_card_ocr or driver_license_ocr by focusing on bank cards.

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 explicitly states best-use workflows ('payment binding, card-information prefill, bank-account verification'), providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, so it misses a small opportunity for completeness.

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