office_ocr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions pricing and a free tier, but does not indicate whether the tool returns raw text, confidence scores, or handles errors. There is no description of rate limits, image format restrictions, or authentication needs.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose ('OCR'). It includes relevant but secondary information (pricing, API link) in a second line. While not verbose, it could remove the API URL as it is likely not needed for tool selection.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally complete: it states the function and provides the parameter name. However, it lacks information about the return value (text extraction results) and error handling, which are important for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 only parameter 'imageUrl' is fully described in the schema as '图片URL' (image URL). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description could have specified valid URL formats or size constraints to enhance understanding.

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 '图片文字识别(OCR)' which clearly indicates it performs optical character recognition on images. The tool name 'office_ocr' further reinforces this. The purpose is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like 'image_analyze' or 'barcode_scan', though it could be more explicit in English for an AI agent.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'image_analyze' or 'office_pdf_parse'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, image requirements, or expected use cases, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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