jp_lit_get_fulltext

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool retrieves OCR JSON and mentions prerequisites. However, it doesn't describe potential side effects, error conditions, or limitations like rate limits. For a read-only get operation, basic transparency is provided but lacks depth.

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?

Three sentences, each dense with information: main purpose, restriction, and usage hints. No redundancy, front-loaded with key action. 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (1 required), many siblings, and an output schema, the description covers the main use cases (source_id prerequisites, pid from search). It could include guidance on the source parameter and the output format, but overall it is fairly complete for typical scenarios.

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%, so description must compensate. It adds context for source_id and pid (prerequisite for source_id, direct use of pid from search), but does not explain source (enum of many sources) or force_refresh. Only two of four parameters get partial explanation, leaving significant gaps.

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 gets full OCR JSON from NDL digital collection materials, restricting to internet public materials only. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jp_lit_search_fulltext (search for fulltext) and jp_lit_get_record (get record) by mentioning specific usage patterns for source_id and pid.

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 provides explicit guidance: when using source_id, first check availability with jp_lit_get_record; pid from jp_lit_search_fulltext can be passed directly. It also notes the restriction to internet public materials. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear for typical use cases.

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