jp_lit_search_guides_cases

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

The description explicitly discloses that the operation is non-destructive, that external sources are never modified, and that local session history/cache is updated or replaced depending on cache hit/miss or force_refresh. This adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations, especially since readOnlyHint is false and destructiveHint is false.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key safety property (external read / local bookkeeping write), then states the search resource, purpose, and cache behavior. It is dense but not redundant; a slight loss of clarity comes from mixing safety, purpose, and cache mechanics in one run-on sentence.

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?

With an output schema present, annotations provided, and a description covering side effects, cache behavior, and intended research purpose, the tool is well-specified. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly naming sibling search tools to help route selection, but this is a minor gap given how specific the resource 'reference cases' is.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the schema already documents parameter semantics. The description adds high-level behavior around caching and force_refresh, but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for full 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 states the tool searches reference cases (レファレンス事例) in the Reference Cooperative Database, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like jp_lit_search_guides_manuals and jp_lit_search, which cover different scopes.

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 gives clear intended usage context: it is meant to provide similar questions, answer processes, and reference materials as input for the next research step. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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