jp_lit_resolve_authority

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavior. It indicates the tool is read-only (confirming, returning hints) but does not explicitly state no side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits. Basic behavior is covered, but lacking details.

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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states function, second clarifies role. Extremely concise and well-structured.

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 an output schema and is relatively simple, the description covers the core purpose and return type (alternatives, hints). Minor omissions: no mention of limit or error handling, but overall 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%, so description must compensate. It mentions query and type implicitly (personal, corporate, subjects), but does not explain 'limit' or the exact enum values. Provides meaning for the tool's output, partially compensating.

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 checks authority candidates (personal, corporate, subjects) and returns alternative names and safe search hints. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by explicitly stating it is not a literature search source.

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 says it is 'not a literature search source' but a 'supporting tool for search term expansion and name confirmation', guiding agents to use it for term expansion rather than direct document retrieval, clearly contrasting with siblings like jp_lit_search.

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