jp_lit_search_guides_manuals

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

The description explicitly explains the non-destructive local-write behavior: external source is unchanged, cache hits update session history, and cache misses or force_refresh create/replace local cache. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations, clarifying why readOnlyHint is false while 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 contains no filler; every clause adds information about scope, side effects, or cache behavior. It is slightly dense and run-on, and it leads with side-effect status rather than the core search purpose, but it remains efficient.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the non-bibliographic purpose, external/local side effects, and cache/force_refresh semantics. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how this relates to sibling tools like jp_lit_search_guides_cases, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 already documents all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, including query, page, limit, lib_id, lib_group, session_id, and force_refresh. The description adds overall purpose but no additional per-parameter meaning, so it stays at the baseline for high 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 states a specific verb and resource: it searches how-to manuals in the Reference Cooperative Database. It also clarifies that this is not a bibliographic search but a tool for getting research clues about materials, indexes, and reference books. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool jp_lit_search_guides_cases, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase '書誌検索ではなく、どの資料や索引・参考図書をどう使って調べるかの手がかりを得るためのツール' implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or explain how this differs from sibling tools such as jp_lit_search_guides_cases.

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