ocr_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the OCR engine (Tesseract) and the mode defaults, but says nothing about error/failure behavior for low-legibility images, whether the operation is read-only/side-effect-free, or resource/time constraints — gaps that matter for an OCR tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a short use-case sentence and a clean Args block. The use-case sentence is mildly expendable but structured, and nothing is padded or circular.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the parameters are well covered. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation (single image vs batch vs PDF vs page) and any statement about failure handling, leaving the agent to guess which OCR tool to pick in a five-tool family.

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: image_path is documented with accepted formats and an absolute-path requirement, lang lists valid values (por, eng, por+eng) with its default, and psm decodes the integer enum (3=auto, 6=uniform block, 11=sparse text). This adds meaning the bare schema cannot convey.

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+resource: extract text from an image via OCR (Tesseract), and even enumerates concrete use cases (screenshots, scanned pages, document photos). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tools (batch_ocr, ocr_page, ocr_pdf), so an agent must infer the boundary from the resource noun alone.

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 'Útil para...' sentence gives implied usage context (screenshots, scanned pages, document photos), which is better than nothing. But it never names alternatives or exclusions, so nothing tells the agent when to prefer batch_ocr (multiple images) or ocr_pdf (PDF input) over this single-image tool.

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