locate_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses case-insensitivity, the split-text-operator limitation, the masked-preview output ('not the raw text'), and the privacy guarantee ('Nothing is uploaded'). This is exemplary transparency beyond what any schema could convey.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, usage guidance, behavioral caveats, output format, and privacy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity without redundancy or filler.

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 description is fully self-contained for a two-parameter tool. It explains what the tool returns, how to use it effectively, important edge-case caveats, and privacy behavior. An output schema exists to describe the return structure, so the description does not need to list return fields.

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 already describes both parameters completely (pdfPath and texts with descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that texts are 'literal strings' and that matching is exact, but it does not add substantial new parameter-level detail. The schema does the heavy lifting here.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Locate exact text strings in a PDF and return each occurrence's page and coordinates (in PDF points).' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by framing it as the exact-match counterpart to pattern-matching tools. This makes the tool's purpose immediately unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this for what pattern-matching can't catch' and the user is told to do entity recognition themselves and pass literal strings. It also names the downstream workflow: 'Feed the returned regions straight to redact_pdf.' This provides clear when-to-use context and an implicit alternative (pattern-matching).

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