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 transparency. It discloses the tool retrieves OCR text and coordinates for public materials, implying it is a read operation. However, it does not state error behavior (e.g., if material is not public) or response format.

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 relatively concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by clearly indicating parameter handling.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters in the schema but an output schema exists. The description does not explain how the agent should supply the needed identifiers (source_id, pid), which is critical for correct invocation. Given the complexity of relying on contextual parameters, the description is 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 has 0 parameters, but the description mentions 'source_id' and 'pid' as inputs. This is a contradiction: the schema does not define these parameters, so the description does not add meaningful semantics but instead introduces confusion. Schema coverage is 100% but only because there are no parameters to cover.

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 tool retrieves page-level OCR text and coordinates for NDL digital collection materials, with the constraint of only publicly available materials. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools 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?

The description provides some guidance: using source_id requires prior availability check via jp_lit_get_record, and pid from jp_lit_search_fulltext can be used directly. But it lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives and does not clarify how to pass parameters given the empty schema.

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