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 that ndl_digital results include non-public metadata and gives a warning about OCR prerequisites. It also explains pagination behavior. However, it omits mutability, authentication, or rate limits.

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 dense and packed with information, with no wasted sentences. However, it could be structured more clearly (e.g., bullet points for aliases). It is effective but slightly verbose.

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?

Despite covering source mapping, per-call semantics, and NDl digital specifics, the missing parameter definitions in the schema create a gap. The output schema exists but is not shown; the description does not explain return format. The inconsistency reduces completeness.

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 parameters, but the description discusses source, total, limit, and page as if they exist. This inconsistency undermines the agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly. The description adds alias mapping but cannot compensate for the schema mismatch.

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 across 8 sources. It distinguishes from sibling search tools (e.g., jp_lit_search_fulltext, jp_lit_search_illustrations) by specifying cross-source search and providing explicit source aliases.

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 source alias mapping and explains when to use the tool (cross-source search). It also mentions per-call semantics for total/limit/page and advises checking jp_lit_get_record before OCR. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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