get_pinpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals what each mode returns—text plus pinpoint cite, or located paragraph with verbatim status—and flags the pre-1997 limitation. It stops short of explicitly stating non-mutating read-only behavior, though 'Resolve' and 'returns' strongly imply it.

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 compact and well-structured: the core mapping is front-loaded, mode behaviors are separated clearly, and the limitation sentence earns its place. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

For a three-parameter tool with an output schema and clear mode logic, this description is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to call it. It covers mode selection, return behavior for both modes, and the key data-coverage limitation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by establishing the mutual-exclusivity relationship between paragraph and quote, explaining the result each produces, and noting the ¶-marker constraint that affects the paragraph parameter.

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 opens with 'Resolve a pinpoint' and immediately specifies the two directional mappings: paragraph number to text, or quote to paragraph. This precise verb+resource framing clearly distinguishes it from sibling lookups like get_opinion_text or verify_quotation.

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?

It gives explicit operational guidance: 'Provide exactly one of paragraph or quote' and explains the behavior for each mode. It also adds a concrete precondition and limitation about ¶ markers, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when to prefer them.

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