get_text_position

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

The annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description does not add any behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose what the return payload looks like, whether any document-level qualification is needed, or any edge cases, so the description adds no transparency value beyond the 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 extremely concise at only four words, front-loading the core purpose without wasted sentences. While it lacks structural elements like examples or additional clauses, it is appropriately sized for a simple getter and earns its place, though it might be too terse to be fully helpful.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It also fails to provide any usage context beyond the schema. The tool seems relatively simple, but for a complete description, it should mention the return structure or how the position relates to documents, which is absent.

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?

All three parameters have detailed descriptions in the input schema, covering the document type, document ID, and position ID. With 100% schema coverage, the description need not repeat parameter details, and it does not add any additional meaning. The baseline 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 'Fetch a text position' clearly states the action (fetch) and the resource (text position), distinguishing it from other position-related tools like get_discount_position or get_item_position. However, it is quite minimal and does not elaborate on what a text position is, though the schema provides some context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_text_positions or other get_position tools. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or when a user should prefer this tool, leaving the agent with no direction beyond the schema's required parameters.

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