jp_lit_find_authority_terms_by_classification

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the read/write split: external read but local bookkeeping write, non-destructive, never modifies the external source, and updates local session history even on cache hits while creating/replacing local cache on miss or force_refresh. This is rich, decision-relevant behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, use case, alternatives, and side effects are all covered. It is slightly monolithic as one long sentence, but there is no redundancy or filler.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description still provides the critical missing context: when to use the tool, which siblings to prefer for other cases, and the cache/session side effects. Nothing essential for correct tool selection or invocation is missing.

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 every parameter. The description adds high-level context about classification-based vocabulary expansion but no per-parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific operation: use Web NDL Authorities to find subject heading candidates from NDC classifications and return exploration terms for unknown books. It also differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly naming jp_lit_resolve_authority and jp_lit_search, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this tool for vocabulary expansion when the classification symbol is known, and explicitly routes to jp_lit_resolve_authority for person-name/subject-string lookups and to jp_lit_search for the main literature search. This is clear and actionable.

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