jp_lit_get_text_coordinates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It mentions constraints (public-only, prerequisite check) but lacks disclosure of idempotency, rate limits, side effects, or auth requirements. The tool's safety profile is unclear.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add necessary usage notes. No filler, but could benefit from more structured formatting.

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?

Covers constraints and prerequisites, but lacks parameter details for page and force_refresh. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but parameter semantics gaps reduce completeness.

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 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning only for source_id and pid, but does not explain page indexing, force_refresh behavior, or source enum values. Despite low coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 it retrieves per-page OCR text and coordinates for NDL digital collection materials (only internet-public). It specifies prerequisites for source_id and valid pid usage, distinguishing it from siblings like jp_lit_get_fulltext.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: only for internet-public materials, and that source_id requires prior availability check via jp_lit_get_record. Also states pid from jp_lit_search_fulltext can be used directly. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but gives clear guidance.

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