jp_lit_search_illustrations

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the external source is never modified, that local session history is updated even on cache hit, and that local cache is created/replaced on cache miss or force_refresh. This gives agents precise expectations about side effects without contradicting the annotations.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: side-effect summary, search scope, result contents, and cache behavior. It is front-loaded with the non-destructive nature and immediately specifies the resource and action. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 output schema exists, annotations are present, and all parameters are described, the free-text description covers purpose, scope, result content, and cache/session side effects thoroughly. The only gap is the absence of explicit guidance about when not to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools, but the described focus on illustrations makes the use case reasonably clear.

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%, so each parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds context about cache behavior and IIIF image results, but does not materially deepen understanding of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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-resource pair: it searches illustrations and figures (図版・挿絵) across the full NDL Digital Collection by text keyword, restricted to publicly available material. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like jp_lit_search_fulltext or jp_lit_search_kokusho_image_tags by focusing on illustration search with IIIF image URL results.

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 context for when this tool is appropriate: searching illustration/figure content by text keyword across all public NDL materials. It also clarifies scope boundaries (public range only) and side effects. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or alternative sibling tools, so it misses the top bar of 5.

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