jp_lit_search_fulltext

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope (public domain only) and that results include pid for direct use. However, it does not state read-only behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or consequences of missing parameters. The description adds some behavioral context beyond schema but is not comprehensive.

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 consists of two efficient sentences with no unnecessary words. The core purpose is stated first, followed by key parameter details and result usage. It is appropriately front-loaded and each sentence adds value.

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 having an output schema (which can describe return values), the tool has 7 parameters and no annotations. The description fails to explain most parameters, relationships to siblings, or operational nuances like caching (force_refresh). It is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%. The description explains the searchfield parameter in detail (contentonly, metaonly, all) and implies keyword's role. However, it does not describe size, from, f_ndc, fc_is_classic, or force_refresh, leaving 5 parameters undocumented. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as keyword search across OCR full text of NDL Digital Collection materials, specifying scope (public domain only). It mentions that results include pid for use with jp_lit_search_pages, which hints at differentiation from some siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like jp_lit_search or jp_lit_search_kokusho_fulltext, leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over its many search-related siblings. It lacks prerequisites, context for use, and scenarios where alternative tools would be more appropriate. The only usage hint is the searchfield enumeration, which is already in the schema.

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