ocr_exam_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that the tool performs OCR, consumes monthly quota, requires Pro access, and returns structured question/answer/explanation data. It also includes an acceptable-use restriction. It does not mention error behavior or data retention, but the core operation and resource implications are disclosed.

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 three concise sentences: the first names the tool and its access/quota context, the second explains input-process-output, and the third states the usage policy. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or verbose 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input format, the operation, the return content, and access constraints. It does not describe possible failure cases or empty search results, but for the tool's simplicity the provided context is adequate.

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%: the imageBase64 parameter is already documented with format details (base64, optional data URI prefix, ≤6MB suggestion). The tool description only repeats '上传题目图片的 base64' without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the verb and resource: 'OCR 拍照搜题' (upload base64 of question image, recognize question stem, return structured questions, answers and explanations). This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which are all resume, interview, or health related.

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 communicates the intended trigger ('上传题目图片的 base64') and access constraints ('Pro 专属，月度额度', '仅限合法学习用途'). It does not name alternatives because none of the sibling tools overlap with OCR-based exam search, so no explicit exclusion is needed. A small gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when not to use it beyond the Pro/quota restriction.

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