jp_lit_get_fulltext

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

The description begins with 'read-only' and notes the constraint of internet-public materials only. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits (no destructive actions, scope limitation). No contradictions with annotations.

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 three well-structured sentences: purpose+constraint, prerequisite, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no redundant content.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It adequately covers purpose, usage flow, constraints, and alternative tools for a read-only retrieval tool with clear prerequisites.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that pid from jp_lit_search_fulltext can be passed directly, and that source defaults to ndl_digital but source_id requires prior availability check. This contextual info goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 collections for internet-public materials only. It differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming alternatives for specific pages (jp_lit_get_text_coordinates) and page searching (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?

The description provides explicit guidance: use for full-text OCR retrieval, check availability via jp_lit_get_record before using source_id, and directly pass pid from jp_lit_search_fulltext. It also states when not to use by referencing sibling tools for specific page needs.

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