is_ocr_available

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool checks availability but does not disclose that it likely returns a boolean, nor does it mention any loading, initialization, or side-effect behavior. It is minimally informative but not misleading.

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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. The verb and object are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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 parameterless capability check, the description is close to sufficient, but the absence of an output schema means the return value is not explicitly described. An agent can infer a boolean result from the name and phrasing, but a short statement of the return type would make it fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers 100% of the input contract. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 4 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 states a specific verb ('Verifica') and resource ('OCR (Tesseract.js) está disponible'), making the tool's purpose clear. It also conceptually distinguishes this from the sibling OCR-based tools like extract_text_from_image, though it does not explicitly name that distinction.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context of sibling tools like create_process_from_image implies it could serve as a precondition check, but that is left entirely to inference.

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