jp_lit_get_fulltext

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It declares 'read-only' and limits to internet-public materials. Could mention error behavior for non-public materials, but current coverage is good.

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?

Concise with multiple useful sentences, no redundancy. Starts with key attributes (read-only, purpose) and logically organized with actionable instructions and alternative recommendations.

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 existence of output schema and sibling tools, description fully covers domain: it specifies scope, prerequisites, alternative tools, and parameter usage. No significant gaps for an agent.

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?

Adds significant context beyond schema: suggests default source (ndl_digital), explains source_id prerequisite, confirms pid direct usage, and clarifies force_refresh cache behavior. All four parameters benefit from description text.

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 retrieves full-text OCR JSON from NDL Digital Collection materials, specifying 'read-only' and the resource. It differentiates from siblings by mentioning alternative tools for specific tasks (jp_lit_get_text_coordinates, jp_lit_search_pages).

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?

Explicitly instructs to check availability via jp_lit_get_record when using source_id, and that pid from jp_lit_search_fulltext can be passed directly. Also lists alternative tools for specific use cases, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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