ndl_search_books

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: fields are combined with AND, title/creator/publisher/subject match partially, it returns the unified response envelope, and records are displayed but not stored. This clearly communicates side effects and result shaping, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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 terse sentences: the first states purpose, the second states matching behavior, the third states output and side-effect semantics. No filler words, no repetition of schema details, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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, together with a rich input schema and an output schema, gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly: scope, query combination semantics, return envelope, and non-storage behavior. It falls short only in not explicitly routing the agent away from sibling search tools or mentioning pagination parameters, though those are documented in the schema.

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 description names a few parameters (title, creator, publisher, subject) and notes they match partially, but the input schema already documents each field with equivalent or richer descriptions. The main addition beyond the schema is 'fields are combined with AND', which is useful but modest. Given the schema descriptions are strong, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Search'), a concrete resource ('国立国会図書館蔵書'), and a clear scope ('books and monographs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ndl_search_articles or ndl_search_digital_open without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 description implies this tool is for searching books and monographs rather than articles or digital collections, but it never explicitly names alternatives or says when to prefer this tool over sibling searches. It does provide practical query semantics (AND combination, partial matching), but not exclusion guidance.

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