Image Ocr

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

Annotations already fix the safety profile (destructive=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds two real behavioral facts beyond them: OCR text and geometry do not establish table structure or factual support, and missing local runtimes yield an explicit limitation instead of a silent failure. There is mild tension between "Observe" and readOnlyHint=false, but the tool plausibly writes prepared-image artifacts, so this is not a hard contradiction.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the limitation caveats following. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding or restated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all parameters are documented in the schema. The description covers engine locality and failure/unreliability semantics, but omits when to prefer this over vision_ocr and does not clarify what is written given readOnlyHint=false.

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%, so the schema already documents file_path, engine, crop, resize, languages, and the rest; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only that the engine is local and explicitly chosen, a small increment over the enum values in 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 names a specific verb+resource ("Observe text and geometry") and scopes it to "an explicitly selected local OCR engine," which separates it from the sibling vision_ocr (likely the cloud path). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling it is not, so differentiation requires inference.

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 only implied: the caller is told the engine must be selected explicitly and is local, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over vision_ocr or image_read. The second sentence reads as an interpretation caveat rather than selection guidance.

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