jp_lit_resolve_authority

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it makes external API calls, is read-only, or has rate limits. While it implies no side effects, explicit disclosure is lacking.

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 concise sentences front-loaded with key purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no explicit parameter descriptions) and presence of an output schema, the description explains the tool's purpose but lacks details on return values, caching behavior, or the force_refresh parameter. It is minimally adequate.

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%. The description does not explain individual parameters (query, type, limit, force_refresh) beyond general context. The schema provides constraints and enum but no descriptions, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 it resolves authority candidates from Web NDL Authorities for names/corporations/subjects and returns alternative names and safe search hints. It explicitly distinguishes itself from literature search sources, making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like jp_lit_search.

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 explicitly states it is not a literature search source but an auxiliary tool for search term expansion and name confirmation, providing clear context on when to use it. However, it does not directly name alternative sibling tools, though the contrast is implied.

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