jp_lit_enrich_record

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the annotations: external sources are unchanged, local session history is updated even on cache hits, cache is created/replaced on miss or force_refresh, OpenAlex is skipped without OPENALEX_API_KEY, and absence from OpenAlex or low citation counts is not evidence of low importance. This strongly supplements the limited annotation signals.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose and scoping constraint. The latter half packs several important caveats into a run-on structure, with some redundancy between '非破壊' and '外部sourceは変更しない', so it could be better organized.

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 tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, non-destructive behavior, local side effects, provider availability, and interpretation caveats. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to document the return shape.

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 100%, and the input schema already documents DOI-priority, title-only matching, authors/issued_year usage, provider skipping behavior, force_refresh, and session_id format. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the operation: verifying an already-found single literature candidate against Crossref/OpenAlex and returning a bibliographic confidence score with evidence. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a literature search source, which differentiates it from the many jp_lit_search sibling 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?

The description says when to use it: for external validation of candidates obtained from NDL/CiNii/J-STAGE/IRDB, and when not to use it: not as a literature search/discovery source. It does not name a specific alternative sibling tool, but the boundary is explicit enough.

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