ndl_search_national_bibliography

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempoentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side-effect profile. The description adds only the data-quality trait (authority of imprint data), which is contextual but not a behavioral disclosure such as result ordering, matching semantics, or limits. It adds some value beyond annotations but does not carry new behavioral information.

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 sentences, zero redundancy. The resource and action are front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining why this tool exists and when it matters.

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, every parameter is documented in the schema, and annotations cover the operational profile, so the description need not explain return values or side effects. What it adds — the authority positioning and the when-to-use rule — completes the picture for correct selection. A brief note distinguishing it from ndl_search_books or ndl_search_all would make it complete, hence not a 5.

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% — the tool description contributes nothing about the 12 parameters, though the schema itself documents each property well. The phrase "publication date, publisher or edition statement" faintly hints at which search fields matter, but that is indirect and does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 国立国会図書館全国書誌情報" — and then sharpens the scope by positioning this as the authoritative source for Japanese imprint data. The "authority" framing distinguishes it from sibling search tools without ambiguity: this is the tool to trust for dates, publishers, and edition statements.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: choose this tool when a publication date, publisher, or edition statement must be authoritative rather than merely plausible. It stops short of naming alternative siblings or stating when NOT to use it, so a score of 5 would overstate its completeness.

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