APIbase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the backend provider (OCR.space) and return format (recognized text), but omits operational details like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling behavior, or timeout characteristics.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste. Core action is front-loaded ('Extract text...'), followed by capability details (languages, formats) and backend attribution. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple parameter structure (4 flat params, 100% schema coverage) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's scope. Only minor gaps remain regarding error states and rate limiting, which would be expected given no annotations are provided.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by enumerating specific supported languages (English, Russian, Chinese, etc.) and file formats in prose, helping map natural language intents to the schema's enum codes (eng, rus, chs).

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 specific action (Extract text), target resource (image or PDF URL), and method (OCR). It distinguishes effectively from siblings like ai.image.generate (creation vs. extraction) and document.convert.* (format conversion vs. text recognition).

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 usage through specificity (OCR, image/PDF input), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like document.convert.from_pdf or web.scrape.extract. No 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisite guidance is provided.

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