ocr_image

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds real behavioral context beyond the schema: the operation is an async job (poll_interval_seconds, timeout_seconds, job_id in the return), and it names the returned summary fields. It stops short of stating auth requirements, error behavior, or whether output_path is overwritten.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a clean args list and a return summary. It is longer than a single sentence but every line adds parameter or return semantics, so little is wasted.

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 eight parameters, a write side effect, and no annotations, the description covers inputs and the return shape well. Remaining gaps—overwrite semantics for output_path, permissions/auth, and failure modes—are minor for an OCR utility whose output schema is provided.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for all eight parameters: path formats (absolute, png/jpg), UTF-8 output, the meaning of the two transliteration flags, the optional instruction, the 'auto' model default, and what the polling/timeout knobs control.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run Dharmamitra OCR on an image and save extracted text to a file.' The input and the side effect (writing extracted text to a file) are both named, so an agent knows exactly what the tool accomplishes without opening the schema.

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 purpose implies the usage context (OCR of a local image), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-tool guidance. With no siblings this is less costly, but the description still leaves selection and prerequisites to inference.

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