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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the unified envelope with operation 'get_record', which is mild context, but says nothing about error behavior for a bad CRID, unknown URLs, or result size.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence about the envelope is partly redundant given a full output schema exists, keeping it from a 5.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what it fetches, the input formats accepted, and the return envelope. Only failure modes and CRID format details are missing.

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 reported as 0% for the single parameter, so the description must carry some weight; it does clarify that either a full URL or a CRID is accepted. However, it gives no format examples, no valid CRID pattern, and no guidance on the 2000-character limit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single CiNii record') and distinguishes itself from the search siblings by emphasizing a single record looked up by URL or CRID rather than a query. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the follow-up call after a search returns a record URL/CRID. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over re-searching, and no note about what to do if the lookup fails.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: it returns a unified envelope and may emit records with a default record_type of 'article' because CiNii does not always disambiguate mixed types.

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 three tight sentences: purpose first, return envelope second, and a key caveat third. There is no filler, and the important type-disambiguation warning is front-loaded enough to be useful.

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?

Annotations cover safety behavior and an output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values in full. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the missing parameter guidance and lack of explicit sibling routing leave meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 compensate for undocumented parameters, but it says nothing about query syntax, lang, count limits, start/pagination, or from_year/to_year filtering. The parameter names are mostly self-explanatory, but semantic meaning is left largely to inference.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Cross-type search across all CiNii content.' The word 'all' implicitly distinguishes it from the type-specific sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 phrase 'across all CiNii content' implies this tool is for broad, cross-type queries, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives such as cinii_search_articles or cinii_search_books.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: AND-semantics across catalogue metadata, two named diagnostics (ZERO_CONJUNCTION, SCRIPT_LATIN_QUERY), and a pointer to the unified envelope return shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then layered diagnostics and scope boundaries. Dense but nearly every sentence carries distinct information; the em-dash clause about ZERO_CONJUNCTION is slightly compressed but earns its space.

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?

Output schema exists, so omitting return-value detail is fine, and the diagnostic behavior is well covered. However, a tool with eleven optional filter fields whose 0% schema coverage leaves them undocumented needs the description to say more about what those filters do to results.

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% and the description only illuminates the query parameter (multi-word AND behavior, romanized metadata). It says nothing about the title, author, journal, from_year/to_year, data_source, lang, sort, count, or start fields, which are the bulk of the input object.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search CiNii Research for journal articles) and explicitly excludes the sibling cinii_search_books ('Foundational monographs sit in cinii_search_books, not the article index'). It also contrasts against J-STAGE, so an agent can route queries without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to guidance: a zero result from a compound query should prompt re-rendering rather than a conclusion that literature is absent, and monograph searches belong to cinii_search_books. It stops short of explicit routing guidance against cinii_search_all or cinii_search_dissertations, which are also siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only that it 'Returns the unified envelope,' which is vague and adds little behavioral context beyond what the annotations and output schema already provide.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource. It is appropriately concise, though the phrase 'unified envelope' is jargon that does not earn much informational value.

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 tool has many search parameters, a nested input object, and no schema descriptions, so the description needs to compensate for parameter semantics and usage guidance. Instead it only names the resource, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation despite the presence of an output schema and annotations.

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%, and the description says nothing about the many available filters (query, title, author, ISBN, year range, pagination, lang). It does not explain how required 'query' interacts with optional filters or what the parameters mean beyond their field names.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search CiNii Research for books and monographs'), making it distinguishable from the sibling article, dissertation, and researcher search tools. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the resource scope is clear.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource ('books and monographs'), but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over cinii_search_all or other sibling search tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can infer the use case but is not routed explicitly.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The one behavioral claim offered, 'Returns the unified envelope,' is undefined jargon that tells the agent nothing about result shape, matching behavior, or pagination.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is borderline waste, but overall size is appropriate.

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 with seven optional filters at 0% schema description coverage and no usage guidance, an agent cannot tell how to constrain or paginate the search from this description alone.

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% and the description mentions none of the actual inputs (query, lang, count, start, author, from_year, to_year). Field titles and defaults give partial self-documentation, but the description contributes zero semantic meaning for any 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?

States a concrete verb (Search) plus a specific resource scope (CiNii Research doctoral dissertations), which implicitly separates it from the sibling article/book/kaken/researcher searchers. It never explicitly names the sibling it replaces, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to pick this over cinii_search_all or the other typed searchers, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only hint is the resource name in the first sentence, which the agent must infer from.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results use the unified envelope with record_type 'project', but it does not explain pagination, result ordering, query behavior, or filtering constraints beyond what the schema and annotations provide.

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 two sentences with no wasted language, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It efficiently covers what the tool searches and the result envelope shape.

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?

This is a search tool with several meaningful filters and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description explains none of the filter semantics or query expectations. Although an output schema exists and the envelope note is useful, an agent lacks enough context to use the filters 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 0%, and the description adds no meaning for the nested KakenSearchInput fields such as query, lang, count, start, from_year, to_year, researcher, or institution. The schema exposes these parameters by name only, so the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Search KAKEN research projects." This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as cinii_search_articles, cinii_search_books, cinii_search_dissertations, and cinii_search_researchers.

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 intended use is implied by the resource name, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as cinii_search_all or cinii_search_researchers. An agent can infer that this tool is for projects, but not when another tool would be preferable.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful structural disclosure beyond annotations: the unified envelope shape (record_type 'researcher') and the key caveat that affiliation is absent and name lives in title while profile URL is in ids.url_ja. This is real behavioral context an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact and high-value note about record structure. No wasted sentences, though the note is slightly dense.

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 needn't be fully explained. The description covers the essential caveats an agent needs (envelope type, affiliation absence, field placement). The main remaining gap is behavioral detail on pagination (start/count), which is minor given the rich schema constraints.

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% and the nested object has five fields (query, lang, count, start, institution) with no textual descriptions. The description says nothing about these parameters or their semantics, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. The field-mapping note concerns output, not input parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search for researchers in CiNii'. The 'record_type researcher' clarifies the return. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like cinii_search_articles or cinii_search_all, but the resource is distinct enough that selection is clear.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name 'researchers'. There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no mention of when to prefer cinii_search_all or cinii_get_record, and no prerequisites. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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