jp_lit_get_fulltext

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It mentions internet-public restriction but omits side effects, error handling, or return behavior. Additionally, description references source_id/pid inputs not present in the empty input schema, causing confusion.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose and include usage guidance. Efficient but could be more structured given the schema discrepancy.

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?

Has output schema but fails to explain how to invoke the tool given zero parameters. The mismatch between description and schema leaves agent without clear invocation instructions. Missing error handling and edge cases.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, yet description implies inputs (source_id, pid). Schema coverage is 100% vacuously, but description adds misleading semantics beyond schema. No parameter documentation is needed, but the contradiction reduces clarity.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves full-text OCR JSON from NDL digital collection materials for internet-public materials only. It distinguishes from siblings like jp_lit_search_fulltext and jp_lit_get_record by specifying prerequisites.

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?

Provides clear usage context: only for internet-public materials, and advises checking availability via jp_lit_get_record when using source_id. Also notes that pid from jp_lit_search_fulltext can be used directly.

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