jp_lit_find_authority_terms_by_classification

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: states it performs a non-destructive local bookkeeping write, updates session history on cache hit, and creates/replaces local cache on miss or force_refresh. Annotations already indicated non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) but description clarifies the write side effects.

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?

Description is concise with no redundant sentences. However, it mixes Japanese and English and could be slightly better structured (e.g., separating usage from behavior). Still, every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, description doesn't need to detail return values. Description covers purpose, usage, and behavior adequately. Could briefly mention output type but not necessary.

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 description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the schema. 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?

Description clearly states the tool finds subject headings from NDC classification codes via Web NDL Authorities and returns candidate search terms. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming alternatives: jp_lit_resolve_authority for person/subject text search and jp_lit_search for full literature search.

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?

Description provides explicit usage guidance: use when classification code is known for vocabulary expansion, and avoid when searching by person/subject text or full literature. Also clarifies behavior on cache hit vs miss and that external source is unchanged.

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