ndl_search_articles

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it includes the online-materials set, covers articles often missing from CiNii/J-STAGE, and explicitly does not provide full text. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, followed by scope and a clear limitation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with a rich schema and an output schema, the description adequately explains what is searched, the coverage scope, and the key limitation (no full text). It could be more explicit about sibling routing, but overall it is complete enough 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?

The tool description itself does not describe any parameters, but the nested SearchInput schema gives detailed descriptions for each field (e.g., partial match, date formats, bounds). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, and the structured schema already carries the burden.

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: 'Search 国立国会図書館雑誌記事索引', then clarifies that it covers Japanese periodical articles and indexes articles, not full text. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like ndl_search_books or ndl_search_national_bibliography.

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 clear context on when this tool is relevant: for Japanese periodical article records, including coverage beyond CiNii and J-STAGE. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use them, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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