Run OCR

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the fact that OCR is run. It does not disclose if the operation creates a job, is asynchronous, or has any side effects. The description does not contradict annotations.

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, which is concise but lacks structure. It is not front-loaded with critical information and is overly brief for a tool with 8 parameters and many siblings.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, job handling, or how to interpret results. The description is too sparse for an agent to use effectively.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context to parameters beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool runs OCR on a document or pages. It uses a specific verb 'Run' and resource 'OCR'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like transkribus_recog_run_htr_citlab or transkribus_recog_run_atr, which are also recognition tools. The name itself provides clarity but lacks sibling 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 on when to use this tool versus other recognition tools (HTR, ATR, etc.). No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided. The description is too brief to guide an agent on appropriate usage.

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