jp_lit_search

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

The description clearly discloses that this is an external read with local bookkeeping write, explicitly says external sources are not modified, and explains cache/session side effects on cache hit, cache miss, and force_refresh. It also exposes edge-case behavior such as ndl_digital returning non-public metadata and CiNii diagnostics. None of this contradicts the annotations.

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 content is dense and most of it earns its place, but it is written as one enormous run-on paragraph with no list structure or visual separation. The side-effect warning is front-loaded, but the long mapping and mixed operational caveats make it harder for an agent to parse than it should be.

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 high-complexity tool, the description covers source selection, default behavior, excluded sources, source-specific caveats, cache behavior, and follow-up verification via jp_lit_get_record / jp_lit_get_records. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required, and nothing essential for correct invocation 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 baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining the default source behavior, providing a large user-phrase-to-source mapping, clarifying per-call pagination semantics, and giving source-specific filter guidance such as filters.cinii.category and force_refresh/cache behavior. This is meaningful enrichment 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: '日本語文献ポータルを検索する', and adds scope by explaining the default 8-source cross-search and listing sources that are not included by default. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling search tools such as jp_lit_search_fulltext or jp_lit_search_pages, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 unusually detailed when-to-use guidance: which sources are excluded from the default cross-search, when to use them explicitly, and how to interpret user phrasing into the correct source value. It also routes users to jp_lit_get_record / jp_lit_get_records for verification before checking holdings, but it does not state when to prefer sibling search/refinement tools over this tool.

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