jp_lit_get_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavioral transparency. It discloses that behavior depends on source and metadata, and notes that the implementation does not strictly distinguish access restrictions, adding valuable context.

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 relatively concise, containing essential information and a practical caveat in a few sentences. It could be more structured, but it avoids verbosity.

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 two parameters and no annotations but has an output schema, the description provides adequate context for core functionality and tool usage conditions. However, it lacks parameter-specific descriptions, which limits completeness.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'source_id' parameter. It references 'source' but only in the context of ndl_digital, lacking full semantics for all enum values. Minimal compensation for missing 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 details of a literature record ('文献レコード詳細を取得する'). It distinguishes itself by specifying conditions under which sibling tools become usable, providing clear purpose and differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use related tools based on source and availability metadata, and mentions a practical limitation regarding implementation. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear.

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