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 carries the full burden. It states 'read-only' and limits to internet public materials, which partially discloses behavior. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits like rate limits, cache behavior (force_refresh parameter detailed only in schema), or error handling for unavailable materials. More transparency would be beneficial.

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 concise with a few sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing usage hints. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could be more structured with separate lines for clarity. Still, it is appropriately sized.

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?

Given 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage constraints, and key parameter relationships. It mentions important prerequisites and alternatives. Without seeing the output schema, it appears complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual value by explaining that pid from jp_lit_search_fulltext can be passed directly and that source_id requires prior availability check. It also implies the use of force_refresh for cache control. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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, limited to publicly available internet materials. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning alternative tools for page search (jp_lit_search_pages) and full-text batch (jp_lit_get_fulltext), and notes that pid from jp_lit_search_fulltext can be passed directly.

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 explicit usage context: when to use this tool (retrieve OCR text/coordinates per page), prerequisites (check availability via jp_lit_get_record for source_id), and alternatives (jp_lit_search_pages for page number discovery, jp_lit_get_fulltext for full-text). It also specifies that pid from jp_lit_search_fulltext is directly usable.

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