Extract a receipt into a local report

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that fields require human review, that verification covers structure not accuracy, that data stays local with no uploads or network access, and that a local browser is required. These details are crucial for correct use and are not contradicted by 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 front-loaded with the primary action and then efficiently lists key constraints and caveats. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more compact without losing meaning.

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 lack of an output schema and the tool's complexity, the description covers most essential aspects: input/output formats, accuracy limitations, privacy, and environment requirements. It could be improved by briefly indicating what receipt fields are extracted, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 67%, with input_path and output_path having descriptions. The description adds meaning by specifying accepted image types (JPEG, PNG, WebP) for input_path and clarifying that format controls JSON or CSV output. However, it does not add details about output_path beyond what the schema already states.

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 specific verb (Run OCR) and resource (receipt) and clarifies input/output formats. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling abox_document_scan, which could also be used for scanning documents.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (English printed-text receipts in JPEG/PNG/WebP), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like abox_document_scan. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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