ocr_extract_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions performing OCR but does not describe output format, whether files are modified, how mixed native/scanned pages are handled, or which engine is used by default. Additionally, it only mentions Tesseract while the schema supports multiple engines, creating a minor inconsistency. These gaps are significant for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has a moderately complex schema (5 parameters, one enum) and no output schema, so the description should clarify return values or behavior. It implies that text is extracted but does not specify the output format, pagination, or error handling. Given the rich parameter coverage in the schema, a 3 is the minimum viable level, though more behavioral detail 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly (including engine options and page ranges). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema and even omits the other engine choices, but the baseline for high coverage is 3. No extra semantic value is provided.

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 ('Extrae texto nativo o ejecuta OCR') and resource ('expedientes PDF judiciales, actas notariales o resoluciones públicas escaneadas'), making the tool's function clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings, none of which perform PDF OCR, though it does not explicitly name any alternative. A score of 5 would require explicit sibling differentiation, but the purpose is otherwise unambiguous.

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 implied: the tool is for scanned legal PDFs when native text extraction is insufficient. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., other document-processing siblings) or when not to use it, nor any stated prerequisites. A 3 is appropriate for implied usage with no exclusions.

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