jp_lit_search_guides_cases

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the tool performs external reads and local bookkeeping writes (non-destructive), updates session history on cache hit, and creates/replaces local cache on miss or force_refresh. Annotations already show destructiveHint=false but do not detail the cache behavior. The description aligns with annotations.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the key behavior ('external read / local bookkeeping write（非破壊）'). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 annotations, output schema, and 6 parameters with 100% schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, cache handling, and non-destructive nature. It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's role and behavior.

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%, so all parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not add further parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is 3.

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 it searches reference cases in the Reference Cooperation Database for use as material in the next step of research. The verb '検索する' (search) and resource 'レファレンス事例' (reference cases) are specific, and the tool distinguishes itself from siblings like jp_lit_search_guides_manuals which searches guides/manuals instead.

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 implies usage context ('調査の次の一手の材料として参照するためのツール') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other search tools (e.g., jp_lit_search, jp_lit_search_guides_manuals). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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