jp_lit_find_authority_terms_by_classification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool returns search term candidates and does not disclose whether it is read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, failure behavior, or result format. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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 a single sentence, relatively concise, but it is in Japanese with multiple clauses. It conveys the main idea without being overly long, but better front-loading of key information would improve clarity.

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 absence of parameter descriptions and limited behavioral detail, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, how results relate to the input, or handle edge cases. An output schema exists but is not described, so the description alone is insufficient.

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%, but the description does not explain any parameters. It mentions 'classification' in passing but does not clarify the 'scheme' enum or 'limit' parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type constraints.

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 searches for subject headings from NDC classifications and returns search term candidates. The verb '探し' (search) and resource 'Web NDL Authorities' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like jp_lit_search or jp_lit_resolve_authority. However, the purpose is slightly abstract due to '未知の本を探すための探索語候補'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for finding subject headings from classification but does not mention when not to use it or provide comparative context with sibling tools like jp_lit_search or jp_lit_resolve_authority.

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