Extract Text From Image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool performs OCR. It does not disclose return format, limitations (e.g., handling of low-quality images), or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured annotation support.

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, compact sentence that is immediately clear and front-loaded with the main purpose. There is zero wasted text, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite a well-documented schema, the description is too minimal to be fully contextual. It lacks explanation of output behavior, usage alternatives, or edge cases, and there is no output schema to compensate. Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no annotations), more descriptive context is needed.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the only slight addition is the context of OCR use cases, but it does not elaborate on any parameters.

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 identifies the tool as OCR for images, specifying a range of relevant content types (screenshots, documents, terminal output, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('OCR') and resource (image), which distinguishes it from general image analysis tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 implies when to use the tool (when text needs to be extracted from images) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like analyze_image. The parameter description for 'detail' adds some usage guidance ('Use high for OCR'), but this is not in the main description.

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