jp_lit_search_fulltext

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by noting the public domain scope and searchfield variations, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, pagination behavior beyond size/from, or whether the tool is read-only. It is adequate but 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 is a single, efficient paragraph of three sentences that front-loads the purpose and adds essential details without extraneous information.

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 has 6 parameters and many sibling tools, the description omits explanations for most parameters and does not contrast with alternatives like jp_lit_search. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving gaps for complete agent understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains searchfield and hints at keyword, but fails to describe size, from, f_ndc, and fc_is_classic. Thus it insufficiently compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 full-text across all NDL digital collection materials (public domain only), with specific searchfield options and that results include pid for use by other tools, distinguishing it from sibling tools like jp_lit_search.

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?

While the description explains searchfield options and that results are usable with other tools, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like jp_lit_search or jp_lit_search_pages, nor does it provide when-not guidance beyond the public domain constraint.

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