jp_lit_search_fulltext

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that only publicly available materials are searched and explains the searchfield behavior. However, it does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or pagination details, leaving gaps.

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 relatively concise with two sentences. The purpose is front-loaded. However, it could be more structured with bullet points for clarity.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists but not described), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, pagination, or filtering capabilities beyond searchfield. It partially covers the need.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the searchfield parameter and that results include pid, but does not describe keyword, size, from, f_ndc, fc_is_classic, or force_refresh. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.

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 OCR fulltext of the NDL digital collection for public materials, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'NDL digital collection' and mentions the pid output usable in other tools.

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 explains the searchfield parameter options and that results include pid for use in other tools. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus similar siblings like jp_lit_search or jp_lit_search_kokusho_fulltext.

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