driver_license_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 correctly states that the tool extracts fields (read-only behavior) and which page is supported. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (none expected) or performance characteristics, nor does it mention error scenarios for poor-quality images. This is adequate but could be improved.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and output, the second provides usage context and a limitation. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 simple one-parameter OCR tool with no output schema, the description covers the key points: what fields are extracted, use cases, and a limitation. It could optionally describe the output format more precisely or mention error handling, but it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any information about the 'image' parameter beyond what is already in the schema. It lists extracted fields but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.

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 it extracts structured fields from a Chinese driver's license main page, naming specific fields (license number, name, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the document type and noting that the supplementary page is not supported, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit use cases (auto insurance, car rental, etc.) and a clear limitation (supplementary page not supported). While it does not name alternative sibling tools for other document types, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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