goodnotes_ocr

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: processing is local, the page batch is capped at 10, output is 'approximate', and handwriting, formulas and tables are unreliable and need visual verification. That accuracy caveat is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry. There is a mild tension with readOnlyHint=true, since 'adds OCR text' implies persistent derived state, but this reads as augmenting reads/searches rather than editing user content, so it is not a contradiction.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action and constraints front-loaded and the accuracy caveat second. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 definition covers purpose, batching limits, language support and accuracy limits well, but for a four-parameter tool with zero schema coverage it omits the meaning of replace (does it overwrite prior OCR?) and does not state that exportId is required. That leaves real decision gaps despite the strong behavioral framing.

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 carry the parameter burden. It contributes only the 1–10 page batch limit; it never mentions the required exportId, the startPage/endPage range semantics, or what the 'replace' flag does, leaving the one non-obvious parameter completely unexplained.

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 names a specific operation (OCR recognition) on a specific resource (1–10 exported pages) and adds the operating domains English/German plus 'locally'. This makes it distinguishable from most siblings; the only ambiguity is versus goodnotes_convert_handwriting, which is not addressed.

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 phrase 'Adds approximate OCR text to reads/searches' implies the tool should be run before text reads/searches, which is useful implicit guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not condition, no statement of prerequisites (an export must exist first), and no routing to or away from the sibling goodnotes_convert_handwriting.

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