jp_lit_search_guides_manuals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions it's a search tool but does not state whether it is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The lack of behavioral information is a significant gap.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core function and immediately clarifying scope. 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks parameter explanations and behavioral details. With 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, the agent cannot effectively use the tool without guessing. The description is insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It only describes the overall purpose without detailing query, limit, page, lib_id, lib_group, or force_refresh parameters. The agent has no guidance on how to use them.

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 manuals from the Reference Collaborative Database and explicitly distinguishes it from bibliographic search, explaining its purpose to provide research clues. This differentiates it from sibling tools like jp_lit_search and jp_lit_search_guides_cases.

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 tells the agent it is not for bibliographic search and clarifies when to use it (for how-to guidance). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the bibliographic exclusion.

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