jp_lit_resolve_authority

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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description resolves this apparent tension by clarifying 'external read / local bookkeeping write (non-destructive)'. It further explains side effects beyond annotations: external source is never changed, cache hits still update local session history, and cache misses or force_refresh create/replace local cache. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact, front-loading the core purpose and safety profile, then adding routing alternatives and cache behavior. Every sentence carries useful information; the only minor flaw is slightly run-on punctuation and a somewhat abrupt transition between the sibling-tool routing and the cache side-effect clause.

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?

For a moderately complex tool with an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers external behavior, local state mutation, cache semantics, sibling differentiation, and the non-destructive nature of the operation. Nothing critical that an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all five parameters including query, session_id, type, limit, and force_refresh behavior. The description adds high-level context about returning aliases and search hints, but does not materially add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb (確認し、返す) and a clear resource (Web NDL Authorities), and defines the core purpose: resolving authority candidates for person/corporate/subject names and returning aliases and safe search hints. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from bibliographic search tools, making sibling differentiation unambiguous.

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 routing guidance: this is not a literature search source but a search-term expansion/name-confirmation helper; for classification-based subject lookup use jp_lit_find_authority_terms_by_classification, and for actual literature search use jp_lit_search. This tells an agent exactly when to choose this tool versus named alternatives.

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