jp_lit_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as ndl_digital including restricted metadata, per-call semantics for total/limit/page, and the recommendation to check availability via jp_lit_get_record before OCR. It lacks some details like rate limits or authentication, but is quite transparent.

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 long but efficiently structured: purpose first, then detailed mapping table, then special notes. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy. It could be slightly more concise but is well-organized.

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's complexity (19 sources, 10 parameters, nested objects), the description covers the primary search behavior and source selection well. However, it lacks explanation for several parameters (e.g., filters, sort options) and does not mention the output schema (though it exists). It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'source' parameter with aliases and default behavior, and touches on total/limit/page semantics. However, it does not explain other parameters like filters, sort_by, force_refresh, or issued_from/to, leaving gaps.

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 searches a Japanese literature portal, with a specific verb- resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jp_lit_get_record by focusing on search across multiple sources, and specifies default cross-search behavior.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus not, including which sources are included in the default cross-search and which require explicit specification. It gives detailed mappings from user phrasing to source values, helping the agent select the correct source.

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