resolve_source_mapping

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by noting the mapper is pinned/reusable and that some ranges are flagged review-required and unsafe for retrieval, but it does not explain what 'pinned' or 'review-required' concretely mean in the output.

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?

It is a single short sentence, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy; the front-loaded clause 'Reuse the pinned mapper' is cryptic and consumes the position where the actual purpose should sit.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a four-parameter nested mapping tool with an opaque purpose the description leaves the core contract unstated. Too little context for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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?

All four required parameters (selection, target_corpus_id, target_corpus_version, target_numbering_system) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions any of them. It does not clarify that the selection is a source passage and the target_* fields describe the destination corpus, so the crucial source-to-target semantics must be guessed.

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 sentence names a 'pinned mapper' and 'source retrieval' but never states the actual operation: resolving a Qaloun passage selection into a target corpus/numbering system. An agent cannot infer from this that it converts references across corpora, nor how it differs from get_qaloun_passage or get_source_page.

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?

'review-required ranges are unsafe for source retrieval' hints at a when-not condition, but it is vague and names no alternative tool or fallback behavior. There is no positive guidance on when to call this instead of the sibling retrieval tools.

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