Tool Locate Text

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

With no annotations, the description carries more weight, and it does disclose non-obvious matching behavior: no Chinese segmentation, English cross-word matching, NFKC normalization, and whitespace removal. It also clarifies the coordinate system. It does not explicitly note absence of side effects, but 'locate' is read-only by nature.

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, front-loaded with the primary function, then adds matching nuance in a second sentence. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant noise.

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 output schema covers return shape, and the description covers coordinate semantics and matching behavior. However, because schema coverage is 0% and annotations are absent, the missing documentation of pages and max_results leaves a real gap for an agent trying to call the tool correctly in non-trivial cases.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it only elaborates on query matching. It does not describe the format or meaning of pages, the semantics of max_results, or how path should be supplied. The param names are somewhat self-evident, but the description provides little value beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: locate text and return its page and coordinate box in PDF points with top-left origin. It also frames the tool as the coordinate source for redaction, which clearly separates it from extraction or rendering tools.

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 communicates a clear use case: find where content is and provide coordinates for redaction. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like extract_text or state when not to use it, but the redaction-focused framing is sufficient context for most agents.

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