jp_lit_search_guides_manuals

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

The description transparently discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it performs a non-destructive external read and local bookkeeping write, updates local session history on cache hit, and creates/replaces local cache on miss or force_refresh. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with and adds context to these.

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 front-loaded with a concise summary ('external read / local bookkeeping write（非破壊）') and then elaborates on purpose and behavior. It is structured and every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 tool has 6 parameters, output schema, and numerous siblings, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the non-destructive nature, cache mechanism, and differentiation from bibliographic search. The output schema obviates the need to describe return values, so completeness is adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the cache behavior that affects the force_refresh parameter and the filtering purpose of lib_id and lib_group. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions, earning a higher score than the baseline 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 specifies the tool searches '調べ方マニュアル' (guides/manuals) in the Reference Collaborative Database, distinguishing it from bibliographic search. It explicitly states the purpose is to get clues on how to research, not just find books, and differentiates from similar sibling tools like 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 provides context that the tool is for finding research methods ('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'), implying when to use it over other search tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, leaving room for ambiguity.

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