jp_lit_get_fulltext

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it is an external read with only local bookkeeping writes, it never modifies the external source, and cache hits still update session history while cache misses or force_refresh create/replace local cache. This fully explains the side effects implied by readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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 not bloated; every clause contributes useful guidance. However, it is formatted as one long unbroken paragraph with an abstraction-like prefix before the concrete purpose, which slightly reduces skimmability for an agent.

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's complexity, the description covers prerequisites, material-type restrictions, alternative tools, accepted input origins, external-source safety, and local cache/session side effects. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed here.

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 explains pid, source, source_id, session_id, and force_refresh in detail. The description adds only a small integration hint about passing pid from jp_lit_search_fulltext, which is also already stated in the schema, so it does not significantly elevate parameter understanding.

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 names a specific action and resource: retrieving full-text OCR JSON from NDL Digital Collection materials, with the clear restriction that only internet-public materials are covered. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by pointing to jp_lit_get_text_coordinates for specific pages and jp_lit_search_pages for in-document page discovery.

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 gives explicit routing: use jp_lit_get_record to verify next_digital_library.available=true before using source_id, use jp_lit_get_text_coordinates for single-page checks, and use jp_lit_search_pages for page-level searching. It also clarifies that pids from jp_lit_search_fulltext can be passed directly, which tells the agent exactly how to feed this tool.

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