jp_lit_find_authority_terms_by_classification

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It indicates a read operation (returning candidates) but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or data source freshness. Behavior beyond 'return' is absent.

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?

Single sentence conveying purpose, but it is somewhat verbose and could be split. Not critically long, but some phrases (e.g., '未知の本を探すための') add context without being essential.

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 output schema present, return value explanation is not required. However, the tool has four parameters and no parameter descriptions, and lacks usage context. It covers basic purpose but leaves gaps for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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 coverage is 0%, but description only indirectly references classification and scheme ('NDCなどの分類'). No explanation of 'limit' or 'force_refresh' is given. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 states it finds subject headings from NDC classification and returns search word candidates for unknown books. Verb 'find' and resource 'Web NDL Authorities' are clear. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by specifying classification-based authority lookup.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Implies use for classification-based exploration, but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast 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.