jp_lit_get_records

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this performs an external read plus local non-destructive bookkeeping write, preserves input order, triggers individual external lookups for uncached IDs, never modifies the external source, and updates local session history even on cache hits while creating/replacing local cache on misses or force_refresh. These are material behavioral traits not captured by readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, or destructiveHint=false, and there is no contradiction with any annotation.

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 mostly every sentence carries necessary information, and it leads with the most important framing ('external read / local bookkeeping write（非破壊）'). It is slightly long and mixes several distinct rules in one paragraph, with a run-on break between 'jp_lit_get_record を使う' and '外部sourceは変更しない', so it loses a point on structural polish.

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 a rich input schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all the contextual information an agent needs: when to use the tool, what side effects occur, how caching behaves, how inputs are constrained, and how it differs from the single-record sibling. No important call-time decision is left ambiguous.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating that source_ids and pids are mutually exclusive, that pids are only valid for ndl_digital, and that per-candidate cache behavior is tied to force_refresh. It does not add much per-parameter syntax detail because the schema already covers that, but the added relationships and constraints justify a score above baseline.

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 specific verb ('詳細取得する'), resource ('同じ source の選別済み文献候補1〜10件'), and key behavior (batch retrieval returning per-candidate success/failure and cache info in input order). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the single-record sibling jp_lit_get_record, so an agent can select the right tool without inspecting schemas.

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 when-to-use guidance: use for selected candidates from the same source, avoid for auto-enriching all search results or as an upstream bulk API, and use jp_lit_get_record for a single record. It also names the source_ids vs pids exclusivity rule and the ndl_digital-specific pid option, making the choice and invocation conditions unambiguous.

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