ocr_media

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the behavioral load and does so well: it discloses server-side execution and, more importantly, that output is a low-confidence machine guess that degrades on handwriting. It stops short of any operational detail (runtime, size limits, failure behavior), which keeps it just under a 5.

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?

Three short lines, all front-loaded: operation first, then the epistemic caveat. Every sentence earns its place, with no restatement of the tool name or title.

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 no output schema, the description should signal the return shape; 'locate text within it' implies positional results but does not specify format. That is the only meaningful gap for a two-parameter read-only tool with a fully documented schema.

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% — both 'media' (handle or gramps_id) and 'lang' (Tesseract codes) are documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (OCR), resource (document image), and execution model (server-side), plus the goal of locating text. No sibling tool performs OCR, so this is immediately distinguishable from the surrounding media/person/event management tools.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition ('find WHERE something appears in a long scan') and a when-not-to-trust-it warning ('read the image before citing what it says'). It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the guidance is strong and actionable for a niche operation.

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