jp_lit_search_fulltext

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states 'read-only' and clarifies that search is limited to public domain materials. It describes result content (pid) and hints at caching behavior via the force_refresh parameter in schema, though not explicitly. The description does not cover rate limits or error handling, but the read-only nature mitigates risk.

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 a single paragraph, but front-loads 'read-only' and the core function. It is concise without superfluous words. Could be improved with bullet points for readability, but the information density is good.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers key aspects: read-only, scope, searchfield, result pid, and links to related tools. It does not mention pagination handling or max size, but these are in schema. Overall, sufficient for agent use.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the searchfield enum values and noting that results contain pid, which is not in schema. However, other parameters like from, size, f_ndc are not elaborated beyond schema, but schema descriptions are adequate.

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 that this tool searches keywords from OCR full text of NDL Digital Collections public domain materials. It specifies the search field options (contentonly, metaonly, all) and mentions that results contain pid. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by directing users to jp_lit_search_pages and jp_lit_get_text_coordinates for further page-level and coordinate tasks.

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 begins with 'read-only' indicating safe usage. It explains the searchfield parameter and provides clear guidance on when to use sibling tools for page identification and coordinate retrieval. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other search siblings like jp_lit_search or jp_lit_search_kokusho_fulltext, leaving some ambiguity about the scope.

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