jp_lit_resolve_authority

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

The description starts with 'read-only', explicitly indicating safety. It explains the tool's auxiliary role and what it returns. However, given no annotations, it could elaborate on error handling or response format, but the presence of an output schema reduces the burden.

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 well-structured, front-loading the key 'read-only' attribute and purpose, with clear sibling references. It is concise but slightly long; however, it earns its length by providing valuable differentiation.

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 high schema coverage and existence of output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, role as auxiliary tool, and sibling differentiation. It is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke.

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 parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 confirms authority candidates (people, organizations, subjects) via Web NDL Authorities, returning alternative names and safe search hints. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by directing to jp_lit_find_authority_terms_by_classification for classification codes and jp_lit_search for actual document 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for confirming authority names and alternatives. It also gives clear when-not-to-use guidance, directing to jp_lit_find_authority_terms_by_classification and jp_lit_search for other tasks.

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