ocr_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals that the tool uses tesseract OCR, is optimized for pt-BR text, and extracts title, price, and brand from the image. However, it omits limitations such as image quality requirements or handling of non-product images, but the core behavior is well specified.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two focused sentences. It front-loads the core purpose ('Extrai texto de um PRINT/foto') and immediately adds practical usage guidance, with no wasted or redundant words.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and what information it extracts from the image. It does not describe the exact return format or error handling, but the description is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect.

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?

The schema already fully documents the image_url parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds contextual meaning by specifying the expected image type ('print/foto da página de produto') and the intended downstream extraction (título, preço, marca), going beyond the schema's basic 'URL da imagem'.

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 the specific function: 'Extrai texto de um PRINT/foto da página de produto' (extracts text from a print/photo of the product page), specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_image or search_images by focusing on OCR for product page screenshots, mentioning tesseract OCR and pt-BR.

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 explicitly indicates when to use this tool: 'Ideal quando o lojista manda um print da loja própria ou do concorrente em vez de link' (ideal when the store owner sends a print of their own store or competitor instead of a link). This implies an alternative (using a link-based tool) without naming it, providing clear context for usage.

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