jp_lit_search_guides_cases

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or requires authentication. For a search tool, behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination behavior are absent.

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 concise Japanese sentence that front-loads the primary action and purpose. However, it could be more structured by separating key details (e.g., target database, use case).

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 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the parameters, output schema, or how the tool fits into a research workflow. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input context is lacking.

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%, but the description adds no parameter explanations. The query and optional parameters (limit, page, lib_id, lib_group) are not described, leaving their purpose implicit from the schema alone.

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 in the Reference Cooperation Database. It specifies the content (similar questions, answer processes, reference materials) and its purpose (next step in research), making it distinct from sibling search tools like jp_lit_search_guides_manuals.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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