jp_lit_find_authority_terms_by_classification

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

The description starts with 'read-only' which discloses a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it could further detail side effects like cache behavior from force_refresh or rate limits. It adds some value beyond the schema but not exhaustive.

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 that efficiently conveys purpose and usage guidelines. It is front-loaded with 'read-only' and avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. It explains the core logic and differentiates from siblings, providing sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 all parameters. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 action: searching for subject headings in Web NDL Authorities based on classification codes, and the purpose: returning candidate terms for exploring unknown books. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by naming specific alternatives.

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 (when classification code is known) and when to use alternatives (jp_lit_resolve_authority for name/subject strings, jp_lit_search for literature search). This provides clear usage guidance.

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