list_text_positions

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent operation, so the description adds no behavioral context beyond what structured data provides. There is no mention of pagination, default limits, or what 'text positions' represent, offering no additional transparency.

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 short sentence with no redundancy, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, though conciseness itself is not penalized.

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 good schema coverage and annotations, the description omits critical context: it doesn't mention that the tool requires a document type and ID, nor what 'text positions' are or how they relate to other position types. An agent must rely entirely on the schema to understand the tool's scope, making the description incomplete.

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 comprehensively describes all parameters (100% coverage), including limit, offset, document_id, and kb_document_type. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema fully carries the semantic load, so 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 uses a clear verb ('Fetch') and a resource ('text positions'), making the primary function understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling position-listing tools like list_discount_positions or list_item_positions, leaving 'text positions' vaguely defined.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, no mention of alternatives, and no context about document-specific scoping. It is a bare instruction without any decision-making support for an agent.

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