jp_lit_enrich_record

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: non-destructive local write, cache update/replacement, external source immutability, and API key dependency. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these while adding context about local bookkeeping writes and cache semantics. No contradictions found.

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 relatively long and includes some redundant details (e.g., exact cache behavior). While front-loaded with the core purpose, some sentences could be condensed without losing meaning. It is clear but not maximally concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, output schema, annotations), the description provides a complete picture: matching logic, cache behavior, API requirements, and non-destructive nature. The agent can understand when to invoke it and what to expect, though some details (like output schema) are not listed but are available separately.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining how parameters interact: DOI takes priority over title, authors and issued_year affect confidence in title-only matching, and providers defaults. This goes beyond basic schema descriptions, aiding correct invocation.

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 tool's purpose: external verification of a single literature candidate against Crossref/OpenAlex, returning bibliographic confidence and evidence. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it is not a literature search source but a verification tool for candidates from other sources like NDL, CiNii, etc. The verb 'enrich' and specific resource ('record') are well-defined.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for verifying candidates obtained from other sources (NDL, CiNii, etc.) and warns against using it as a search source. It also explains behavior like OpenAlex being skipped without API key and cache details. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools from siblings for comparison, though the usage context is clear.

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