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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful payment context ('x402: 0.004 USDC on Base, pay-per-use') that an agent would not otherwise know, but it omits critical operational details such as input format (URL, base64, file path), output structure, supported file size/type limits, and error behavior.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and free of filler. The payment bracket is compact and informative, though the vague 'Sube el archivo' could have been merged or clarified.

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 tool with one undocumented-in-schema parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is missing essential context: how to supply the image/PDF, what the returned text looks like, and what limits apply. It covers purpose and cost but leaves an agent unable to invoke it correctly without guessing.

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, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Sube el archivo' hints that the input is a file upload, but the schema property is a generic string ('service input') and the description does not clarify how the file should be encoded or passed, adding little beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb and resource: extracting text from images or scanned PDFs. It distinguishes its input types from pure text tools, but it does not differentiate itself from many OCR siblings such as 'ocr', 'ocr-batch', or 'ocr-tables', leaving ambiguity about when this specific tool is preferred.

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 only usage instruction is 'Sube el archivo' (upload the file). There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other OCR siblings, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual constraints.

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