ocr_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions OCR and output formats, but omits important details like supported image sources (though schema includes this), language hints, and any limitations or 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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the core purpose and output capabilities. No extraneous 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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool's function and output formats, but does not describe the structure of the returned data (e.g., JSON fields) or possible errors. Given the sibling context, more details would improve completeness.

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%, but the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It reiterates the format enum but does not add context for the 'image' or 'languages' parameters. Baseline for high coverage is 3, but the description is too shallow to warrant more than 2.

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 text from images using OCR, and specifies supported output formats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_image which imply broader analysis.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs its siblings (analyze_image, analyze_video, compare_images). There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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